THE  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE 

OF 

ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    ■   BOSTON  •   CHICAGO   •  DALLAS 
ATLANTA    •    SAN  FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON   •  BOMBAY   •  CALCUTTA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  LxD. 

TORONTO 


THE   THEORY  AND    PRACTICE 

OF 

ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 


BY 
VICTOR  ALVIN  KETCHAM,  B.  A.,  LL.B. 

ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  OHIO  STATE  UNIVERSITY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 
1921 

All  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1914, 

bt  the  macmillan  company. 

Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  May,  1914. 


NortoooU  IPrrss  : 
Berwick  &  Smith  Co.,  Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


p^  LIBRARY 

/Li2)l  UNnTRRSITY  OF  CALIFORNIi^ 

J^  SANTA  BARBARA 


PREFACE 


The  object  of  this  book  is  to  furnish  practical  directions 
for  the  preparation  and  presentation  of  oral  and  written  argu- 
ments. Teachers  of  Argumentation  and  Debate  have  come 
to  realize  that  interest  can  best  be  stimulated  and  practical 
results  best  secured  by  omitting  the  theoretical  forms  of 
reasoning  at  first,  and  leading  the  student  directly  to  the 
actual  work  of  building  up  an  argument.  The  technical 
name  of  a  logical  process  has  little  to  do  with  its  practical 
application.  This  fact  is  well  illustrated  by  the  constant  use 
of  arguments  in  our  conversation:  moreover,  the  student  who 
enters  upon  this  work  is  sufiiciently  advanced  to  appreciate 
the  difference  between  truth  and  error.  For  these  reasons 
the  book  is  divided  into  two  parts,  the  first  of  which  deals 
with  the  Practice  of  Argumentation  and  Debate.  After  the 
student  has  had  some  experience  in  constructing  and  pre- 
senting arguments  he  is  better  fitted  to  make  practical  ap- 
plication of  the  theoretical  principles  of  argumentation  which 
are  presented  in  the  second  part  of  this  book  under  the  head 
of  the  Theory  of  Argumentation  and  Debate.  Those  teachers 
who  prefer  to  follow  the  old  order  of  presentation  can  do  so 
by  taking  up  the  Theory  of  Argumentation  and  Debate  after 
completing  the  chapter  on  Collecting  Evidence  and  before 
taking  up  the  chapter  on  Constructing  the  Brief. 

Since  Argumentation  and  Debate  has  come  to  be  a  regular 
course  of  study  in  almost  every  college  and  university  and 
in  many  of  our  larger  preparatory  and  high  schools,  there  has 
been  a  tendency  among  text-book  writers  to  multiply  rules 
regarding  every  phase  of  the  subject.    By  consulting  various 


VI  PREFACE 

works  it  will  be  found  that  no  less  than  sixteen  different  rules 
have  been  formulated  for  the  construction  of  the  brief  alone. 
One  book  contains  as  many  as  thirteen  of  these.  To  the 
average  student  the  result  is  confusion  rather  than  enlighten- 
ment. One  of  the  objects  of  the  author  has  been  to  remedy 
this  condition  of  affairs  by  attempting  to  state  clear-cut  rules, 
which,  though  covering  all  contingencies,  are  limited  to  what 
is  essential  and  practical.  In  regard  to  illustrations  and  ex- 
amples the  same  idea  has  been  carried  out. 

The  order  in  which  the  subjects  are  discussed  is  that  dic- 
tated by  actual  practice.  The  object  has  been  to  lead  the 
student  step  by  step,  to  point  out  all  the  difficulties  along 
the  way,  and  to  show  by  precept  and  example  how  they  may 
be  overcome.  After  the  essential  definitions  are  given  and 
the  importance  of  the  subject  upon  which  he  is  entering  is 
set  forth,  the  student  is  shown  where  to  find,  and  how  to 
choose  and  express,  a  proposition  for  argument.  He  is  then 
directed  how  to  analyze  that  proposition  for  the  purpose  of 
finding  out  what  he  must  do  in  order  to  establish  its  truth  or 
falsity.  Next,  he  is  informed  of  the  sources  of  evidence 
bearing  upon  the  proposition,  and  how  such  evidence  is  to 
be  collected  and  used.  Directions  for  constructing  a  brief 
out  of  this  evidence  are  then  presented  and  the  way  in  which 
the  finished  argument  is  to  be  developed  is  set  forth.  The 
psychological  development  of  an  argument  is  here  for  the 
first  time  given  full  consideration.  Following  this  the 
student  is  shown  how  to  defend  his  own  argument  and 
overthrow  that  of  his  opponent.  Finally,  instructions  are 
given  for  delivering  the  argument  in  the  most  effective  man- 
ner. Even  without  the  aid  of  an  instructor  the  student 
could  follow  the  argumentative  process  through  to  the  end. 

The  exercises  given  are  intended  to  be  practical  and  to  as- 
sure a  thorough  working  knowledge  of  the  discussion.  The 
material  in  the  appendix  may  be  used  at  the  discretion  of 


PREFACE  vii 

the  instructor.  The  prevalence  of  references  to  the  Lmcoln- 
Douglas  Debates  is  intentional  and  arises  from  the  fact  that 
the  circumstances  under  which  these  debates  occurred,  the 
personaUties  of  the  participants,  and  the  argumentative  ex- 
cellence of  the  discussions  make  them  especially  useful  to 
the  student. 

The  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  indebtedness  to  all 
those  who  have  heretofore  written  upon  this  subject  as  well 
as  to  the  students  whom  it  has  been  his  pleasure  to  instruct. 
He  wishes  especially  to  acknowledge  the  assistance  of  Pro- 
fessor Raymond  M.  Alden,  who  gave  a  careful  reading  to 
the  greater  part  of  the  manuscript  and  made  many  helpful 
suggestions. 

VICTOR  ALVIN  KETCHAM. 

ConjMBUS,  Omo,  February  i,  igi4. 


CONTENTS 

PART  I 

The  Practice  of  Argumentation  and  Debate 

CHAPTER  I 

DEFINITION  AND  IMPORTANCE  OF  ARGUMENTATION 

Section  Page 

I.  Definitions 3 

II.  The  Object  of  Argumentation 5 

III.  Educational  Importance  of  Argimientation 6 

IV .  Practical  Importance  of  Argumentation 7 

CHAPTER  n 

THE  PROPOSITION 

I.  The  Subject-Matter  of  the  Proposition 9 

1.  The  subject  must  be  interesting 9 

2.  Subjects  for  first  practice  should  be  those  of  which 

the  debater  has  a  general  knowledge 11 

3.  The  subject  must  be  debatable 12 

n.  The  Wording  of  the  Proposition 13 

1.  The  proposition  should  be  so  narrowed  as  to  embody 

only  one  central  idea 14 

2.  The  proposition  should  be  stated  in  the  affirmative .      15 

3.  The    proposition    should    contain    no    ambiguous 

words 16 


X  CONTENTS 

Section                                                                                      Page 
4.  The  proposition  should  be  worded  as  simply  and  as 
briefly  as  is  consistent  with  the  foregoing  require- 
ments    18 

CHAPTER  m 

ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION 

I.  The  Importance  of  Analysis. 21 

II.  Essential  Steps  in  Analysis . 22 

1.  A  broad  view  of  the  subject. 22 

2.  The  origin  and  history  of  the  question 23 

3.  Definition  of  terms 24 

4.  Narrowing  the  question 27 

(i)  Excluding  irrelevant  matter. 27 

(2)  Admitting  matters  not  vital  to  the  argument  28 

5.  Contrasting  the  affirmative  arguments  with  those  of 

the  negative 29 

III.  The  Main  Issues 36 

CHAPTER  IV 

EVIDENCE 

I.  Sources  of  Evidence 39 

1.  Personal  knowledge 39 

2.  Personal  interviews 40 

3.  Personal  letters 41 

4.  Current  literature 42 

5.  Standard  literature 45 

6.  Special  documents 46 

(i)  Reports  and  pamphlets  issued  by  organiza- 
tions    46 

(2)  Reports  and  documents  issued  by  the  govern- 
ment   48 


CONTENTS  a 

Section  Page 

II.  Recording  Evidence 51 

1 .  Use  small  cards  or  sheets  of  paper  of  uniform  size ...     53 

2.  Place  only  one  fact  or  point  on  each  card 53 

3.  Write  only  on  one  side  of  the  card 53 

4.  Express  the  idea  to  be  put  on  the  card  in  the  simplest 

and  most  direct  terms 54 

5.  Make  each  card  complete  in  itself 54 

6.  In  recording  material  for  refutation  put  an  exact 

statement  of  the  argument  to  be  refuted  at  the 
top  of  the  card 55 

7.  State  the  main  issue  or  subject  to  which  the  evidence 

relates  at  the  top  of  the  card 55 

8.  State  the  source  from  which  the  evidence  is  taken  at 

the  bottom  of  the  card 56 

III.  Selecting  Evidence 58 

1.  The  evidence  must  come  from  the  most  reUable 

source  to  which  it  can  be  traced 58 

2.  A  person  quoted  as  authority  must  be  unprejudiced, 

in  full  possession  of  the  facts,  and  capable  of  giv- 
ing expert  testimony  on  the  point  at  issue 60 

3.  Evidence  should  be  examined  to  determine  whether 

there  are  attendant  circumstances  which  will  add 

to  its  weight 62 

4.  The  selection  of  evidence  must  be  fair  and  reasonable    64 

5.  The  position  and  arguments  of  the  opposition  shovdd 

be  taken  into  consideration 65 

6.  That  evidence  which  will  appeal  most  strongly  to 

those  to  whom  the  argument  is  to  be  addressed 
should  be  selected 66 

IV.  The  Amount  of  Evidence  Required 68 

CHAPTER  V 

CONSTRUCTING    THE    BRIEF 

I.  The  Purpose  of  the  Brief 72 

II.  Method  of  Constructing  the  Brief 73 


xii  CONTENTS 

Section  Page 

III.  Rules  for  Constructing  the  Brief 76 

1.  A  brief  should  be  composed  of  three  parts:  Introduc- 

tion, Proof,  and  Conclusion 76 

2.  Each  statement  in  a  brief  should  be  a  single  com- 

plete sentence 77 

3.  The  relation  which  the  different  statements  in  a 

brief  bear  to  each  other  should  be  indicated  by 
symbols  and  indentations 77 

4.  The  introduction  should  contain  the  main  issues  to- 

gether with  a  brief  statement  of  the  process  of 
analysis  by  which  they  were  found 79 

5.  The  main  statements  in  the  proof  should  corre- 

spond to  the  main  issues  set  forth  in  the  introduc- 
tion, and  should  read  as  reasons  for  the  truth  of 
the  proposition 84 

6.  Every  statement  in  the  proof  must  read  as  a  reason 

for  the  statement  to  which  it  is  subordinate 85 

7.  Statements  introducing  refutation  must  state  clearly 

the  argument  to  be  refuted 87 

8.  The  conclusion  should  be  a  summary  of  the  main 

arguments  just  as  they  stand  in  the  proof  of  the 
brief  and  should  close  with  an  affirmation  or 
denial  of  the  proposition  in  the  exact  words  in 

which  it  is  phrased 89 

Specimen  student  brief 91 

CHAPTER  VI 

CONSTRUCTING   THE   ARGUMENT 

I.  Attention — Aroused  by  the  Introduction 95 

1.  Kinds  of  attention 96 

A.  Natural  attention 96 

B.  Assumed  attention 97 

2.  Methods  of  securing  proper  attention 98 

A.  Immediate  statement  of  purpose 98 


CONTENTS  xm 

Section  Page 

B.  Illustrative  story loo 

C.  Quotations loi 

II.  Interest — Maintained  by  the  Proof 102 

1.  Necessity 103 

2.  Methods  of  maintaining  interest 103 

A.  Appropriate  treatment 103 

a.  Adaptation  to  speaker  or  writer 103 

b.  Adaptation  to  audience  or  reader 103 

c.  Adaptation  to  time  or  occasion 106 

B.  Logical  structure 106 

C.  Style 107 

a.  Elements  of  style 108 

(i)  Vocabulary 108 

(2)  Sentences 109 

(3)  Paragraphs no 

b.  Qualities  of  style no 

(i)  Clearness no 

(2)  Force 117 

(3)  Elegance 120 

III.  Desire — Created  by  the  Conclusion 121 

1.  Necessity 121 

2.  Interest 122 

A.  Convenience 122 

B.  Pleasure 1 23 

C.  Profit 123 

3.  Jealousy,  vanity,  and  hatred 124 

4.  Ambition 124 

5.  Generosity 125 

6.  Love  of  right  and  justice 125 

7.  Love  of  coxmtry,  home,  and  kindred 125 

CHAPTER  VII 

REBUTTAL 

I.  Preparation  for  Rebuttal 129 

I.  Sources  of  material  for  rebuttal 129 


XIV  CONTENTS 

Section  Page 

A.  Material  acquired  in  constructing  the  argu- 
ment   129 

B.  Books,  papers,  and  documents 131 

C.  Questions 133 

2.  Arrangement  of  rebuttal  material 139 

A.  Classification  of  cards 140 

B.  Arranging  books,  papers,  and  documents.  . . .  142 

C.  The  summary  and  closing  plea 143 

II.  Presentation  of  Rebuttal 146 

1.  Attention  to  argument  of  opponent 146 

2.  Selecting  arguments  to  be  refuted 147 

3.  Reading  quotations 149 

4.  Team  work 149 

5.  Treatment  of  opponents 150 

6.  The  summary  and  closing  plea 152 

CHAPTER  VIII 

DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT 

I.  Methods  of  delivering  the  argument 153 

1.  Reading 153 

2.  Memorizing  the  argument  verbatim 154 

3.  Memorizing  the  argument  by  ideas 155 

II.  Physical  preparation  for  delivery 158 

1.  Position 159 

2.  Voice 160 

3.  Emphasis 162 

4.  Key,  rate,  and  inflection 162 

5.  Gesture 164 

6.  Transitions 165 

7.  Presenting  charts 166 

III.  Mental  preparation  for  delivery 167 

1.  Directness 167 

2.  Earnestness 169 

3.  Confidence 170 


CONTENTS  XV 

PART  II 
The  Theory  of  Argumentation  and  Debate 

CHAPTER  I 

INDUCTIVE   ARGUMENT 

Section  tags 

I.  The  Application  of  Processes  of  Reasoning  to  Argximenta- 

tion 175 

II.  Inductive  Reasoning 176 

III.  The  AppUcation  of  Inductive  Reasoning  to  Inductive 

Argument 179 

IV.  Requirements  for  an  Effective  Inductive  Argument 182 

1.  Perfect  inductions 182 

2.  Imperfect  inductions 183 

A.  The  number  of  specific  instances  supporting 

the  conclusion  must  be  sufficiently  large  to 
offset  the  probability  of  coincidence 183 

B.  The  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  about 

which   the    induction   is    made    must  be 
reasonably  homogeneous 185 

C.  The  specific  instances  cited  in  support  of  the 

conclusion  must  be  fair  examples 186 

D.  Careful  investigation  must  disclose  no  excep- 

tions     187 

E.  The  conclusion  must  be  reasonable 188 

CHAPTER  II 

DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT 

I.  Deductive  Reasoning 192 

II.  The  Application  of  Deductive  Reasoning  to  Deductive 

Argument tq6 

III.  The  Enthymeme .%  . . . 


xvi  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  III 

ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION 

Section  Page 

I.  Argument  from  Effect  to  Cause 208 

1.  The  alleged  cause  must  be  sufficient  to  produce  the 

effect 210 

2.  No  other  cause  must  have  intervened  between  the 

alleged  cause  and  the  effect 211 

3.  The  alleged  cause  must  not  have  been  prevented 

from  operating 212 

II.  Argument  from  Cause  to  Effect 213 

1.  The  observed  cause  must  be  sufficient  to  produce 

the  alleged  effect 215 

2.  When  past  experience  is  invoked  it  must  show  that 

the  alleged  effect  has  always  followed  the  observed 
cause 215 

3.  No  force  must  intervene  to  prevent  the  observed 

cause  from  operating  to  produce  the  alleged  effect  216 

4.  The  conclusion  established  should  be  verffied  by 

positive  evidence  whenever  possible 217 

III.  Argument  from  Effect  to  Effect 218 


CHAPTER  IV 

ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY 

I.  The  two  factors  in  the  analogy  must  be  alike  in  all  par- 
ticulars which  affect  the  conclusion 228 

II.  The  alleged  facts  upon  which  the  analogy  is  based  must 

be  true 231 

III.  The  conclusion  established  by  the  analogy  should  be 

verified  by  positive  evidence  whenever  possible 232 


CONTENTS  XVU 


CHAPTER  V 

FALLACIES 

Section  Page 

I.  Fallacies  of  Induction 235 

1 .  The  number  of  specific  instances  relied  upon  to  sup- 

port the  conclusion  should  be  determined 235 

2.  The  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  about  which 

the  induction  is  made  should  be  scrutinized  with  a 
view  to  determining  whether  it  is  homogeneous. .   236 

3.  Whether  or  not  the  specific  instances  cited  in  support 

of  the  conclusion  are  fair  examples  should  be  de- 
termined    236 

4.  A  search  should  be  made  for  exceptions  to  the  rule 

stated  by  the  induction 237 

5.  The  induction  should  be  examined  with  a  view  to 

determining  its  reasonableness 237 

II.  Fallacies  of  Deduction 238 

1.  Material  fallacies 238 

2.  Logical  fallacies 239 

(i)  The  undistributed  middle 239 

(2)  The  illicit  process 244 

(3)  Irrelevancy  of  the  premises,  or  ignoring  the 

question 245 

A.  The  appeal  to  passion,  prejudice,  or 
humor 246 

B.  The  personal  attack  upon  an  opponent .   246 

C.  The  personal  attack  upon  the  person  or 
persons  concerned  in  the  controversy . .   246 

D.  The  appeal  to  custom  and  tradition 247 

E.  Shifting  ground 248 

F.  Refuting  an  argument  which  has  not 
been  advanced 248 

G.  Arguing  on  a  related  proposition 248 

(4)  Begging  the  question 249 

A.  Arguing  in  a  circle 249 


xviii  CONTENTS 

Section  Page 

B.  Directly  assuming  the  point  at  issue ...  25a 

C.  Indirectly  assuming  the  point  at  issue.  251 

III.  Fallacies  of  Causal  Relation 252 

1.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause 252 

(i)  Mistaking  coincidence  for  cause 253 

(2)  Mistaking  an  effect  for  a  cause 254 

(3)  Mistaking  a  subsequent   cause  for  a  real 

cause 254 

(4)  Mistaking  an  insufficient  cause  for  a  sufficient 

cause 25s 

2.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  cause  to  effect 255 

3.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  effect  to  effect 256 

IV.  Fallacies  of  the  Argument  from  Analogy 256 


CHAPTER  VI 

REFUTATION 

I.  Revealing  a  Fallacy 261 

II.  Reductio  ad  Absurdum 262 

III.  The  Dilemma 263 

IV .  Residues 265 

V.  Inconsistencies 267 

VI.  Adopting  an  Opponent's  Evidence 268 


PART  I 

THE   PRACTICE   OF   ARGUMENTATION 
AND   DEBATE 


THE  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE  OF 
ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

CHAPTER  I 

DEFINITION  AND   IMPORTANCE  OF   ARGUMENTATION 

I.  Definitions. 

Argumentation  is  the  art  of  persuading  others  to  think  or 
act  in  a  definite  way.  It  includes  all  writing  and  speaking 
which  is  persuasive  in  form.  The  salesman  persuading  a 
prospective  customer  to  buy  goods,  the  student  inducing  his 
fellow-student  to  contribute  to  the  funds  of  the  athletic  as- 
sociation, the  business  or  professional  man  seeking  to  enlarge 
his  business  and  usefulness,  and  the  great  orator  or  writer 
whose  aim  is  to  control  the  destiny  of  nations,  all  make  use 
of  the  art  of  argumentation  to  attain  their  various  objects. 
These  illustrations  serve  but  to  indicate  the  wide  field  of 
thought  and  action  which  this  subject  includes.  Each  in- 
stance in  this  broad  field,  which  demands  the  use  of  the  art 
of  argumentation,  is  subject  to  the  same  general  laws  that 
govern  the  construction  and  presentation  of  formal  argu- 
ments. Formal  argimaents  may  be  either  written  or  oral, 
but  by  far  the  greater  benefit  to  the  student  of  argumentation 
results  from  the  delivery  of  oral  arguments,  for  it  is  in  this 
form  that  he  will  be  most  frequently  called  upon  to  use  his 
skill. 

3 


4  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

Debating  is  the  oral  presentation  of  arguments  under  such 
conditions  that  each  speaker  may  reply  directly  to  the  argu- 
ments of  the  opposing  speaker.  The  debate  is  opened  by  the 
first  speaker  for  the  affirmative.  He  is  then  followed  by  the 
first  speaker  for  the  negative,  each  side  speaking  alternately 
until  each  man  has  presented  his  main  speech.  After  all  the 
main  speeches  have  been  delivered  the  negative  opens  the 
rebuttal.  The  speakers  in  rebuttal  alternate  negative  and 
aflfirmative.  This  order  gives  the  closing  speech  to  the  affirm- 
ative. Practice  in  this  kind  of  formal  debate  should  go  hand 
in  hand  with  the  study  of  the  text  after  the  first  five  chapters 
have  been  mastered.  The  first  arguments,  however,  should 
be  individual  arguments  written  out  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
abling the  student  to  apply  the  rules  regarding  their  form 
and  development. 

A  proposition  in  argumentation  is  the  formal  statement  of  a 
subject  for  debate.  It  begins  with  the  word  "Resolved," — • 
followed  by  the  statement  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  con- 
troversy, and  worded  in  accordance  with  the  rules  laid  down 
in  the  next  chapter.  In  formal  debate  it  is  always  expressed ; 
as  for  example,  "Resolved,  that  the  Federal  Government 
should  levy  a  progressive  income  tax."  In  other  forms  of 
argumentation  it  may  be  only  implied,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
salesman  selling  goods,  the  student  soliciting  subscriptions, 
the  business  man  arguing  for  consolidation,  or  the  politician 
pleading  for  reform.  Nevertheless,  it  is  always  advisable 
for  the  speaker  or  writer  to  have  clearly  in  mind  a  definite 
proposition  as  a  basis  upon  which  to  build  his  argument. 
The  proposition  for  the  salesman  might  be,  "Resolved,  that 
James  Fox  ought  to  buy  a  piano;"  for  the  student  solicitor, 
"Resolved,  that  George  Clark  ought  to  give  ten  dollars  to 
the  athletic  fund;"  for  the  business  man,  "Resolved,  that  all 
firms  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  matches  should  con- 
soHdate;"  and  for  the  politician,  "Resolved,  that  the  tariff 


DEFINITION  OF  ARGUMENTATION  $ 

schedule  on  necessaries  should  be  lowered."  This  framing 
of  a  definite,  clear-cut  proposition  will  prevent  wandering 
from  the  subject  and  give  to  the  argument  the  qualities  of 
clearness,  unity,  and  relevancy. 

Referring  to  the  definition  with  which  this  chapter  opened 
the  student  should  note  that  it  defines  argumentation  as  an 
art.  While  it  is  true  that  argumentation  must  be  directed  in 
accordance  with  scientific  principles,  and  while  it  is  also  true 
that  it  has  an  intimate  relation  with  the  science  of  logic,  yet 
it  is  primarily  an  art  in  which  skill,  tact,  diplomacy,  and  the 
finer  sensibilities  must  be  utilized  to  their  fullest  extent.  In 
this  respect  argumentation  is  an  art  as  truly  as  music,  sculp- 
ture, poetry,  or  painting.  The  successful  debater  must  be  a 
master  of  this  art  if  he  hopes  to  convince  and  persuade  real 
men  to  his  way  of  thinking  and  thus  to  direct  their  action. 

II.  The  object  of  argumentation. 

The  object  of  argumentation  is  not  only  to  induce  others  to 
accept  our  opinions  and  beliefs  in  regard  to  any  disputed 
matter,  but  to  induce  them  to  act  in  accordance  with  our 
opinions  and  beliefs.  The  end  of  argumentation  is  action. 
The  form  which  this  action  is  to  take  depends  upon  the  na- 
ture of  the  disputed  matter.  It  may  be  only  an  action  of  the 
mind  resulting  in  a  definite  belief  which  will  exert  an  influence 
in  the  world  for  good  or  evil.  It  may  be  the  desire  of  the  one 
who  argues  to  persuade  his  hearers  to  advocate  his  opinions 
and  beliefs  and  thus  spread  his  doctrines  to  many  other  in- 
dividuals. It  may  be  that  some  more  decided  physical  action 
is  desired,  such  as  the  casting  of  a  vote,  or  the  purchase  of  a 
certain  article  or  commodity.  It  may  be  the  taking  up  of 
arms  against  a  state,  race,  or  nation,  or  the  pursuit  of  a  def- 
inite line  of  conduct  throughout  the  remainder  of  the  Hfe  of 
the  individual  addressed.  These  and  many  other  phases  of 
action  may  be  the  objects  of  the  debater. 


6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

III.  Educational  importance  of  argumentation. 

From  the  standpoint  of  mental  discipline  no  study  offers 
more  practical  training  than  does  argumentation.  It  culti- 
vates that  command  of  feeling  and  concentration  of  thought 
which  keeps  the  mind  healthily  active.  The  value  of  this 
kind  of  mental  exercise  cannot  be  overestimated.  Especially 
is  it  valuable  when  the  arguments  are  presented  in  the  form 
of  a  debate,  in  which  the  speaker  is  assigned  to  defend  a 
definite  position  and  must  reply  to  attacks  made  on  that 
position.  Such  work  brings  forth  the  best  powers  of  mind 
possessed  by  the  student.  It  cultivates  quickness  of  thought, 
and  the  ability  to  meet  men  on  their  own  ground  and  con- 
duct a  successful  encounter  on  the  battlefield  of  ideas. 

Another  faculty  of  mind  which  debating  develops  is  tact 
in  the  selection  and  presentation  of  material.  Since  the  ob- 
ject of  debate  is  action,  it  is  not  enough  that  the  speaker  show 
his  position  to  be  the  correct  one.  He  must  do  more  than 
this;  he  must  make  the  hearer  desire  to  act  in  accordance 
with  that  position.  Otherwise  the  speaker  will  be  in  the  same 
position  as  the  savage  who  induces  his  fellows  to  conform  to 
his  ideas  by  the  use  of  a  club, — the  moment  the  influence  of 
the  club  is  removed  the  subject  immediately  reverts  to  his 
former  habits  of  thought  and  action.  If  you  convince  a  man 
that  he  is  wrong  by  the  mere  force  of  argument,  he  may  be 
unable  to  answer  your  argument  but  he  will  feel  like  a  man 
who  has  been  whipped  in  a  physical  encounter — ^though 
technically  defeated  he  still  holds  to  his  former  opinions. 
There  is  much  truth  in  the  old  saying  that,  "He  who  is  con- 
vinced against  his  will  is  of  the  same  opinion  still."  There- 
fore, the  debater  must  do  more  than  merely  convince  his 
hearer;  he  must  persuade  him.  He  must  appeal  to  the  reason, 
it  is  true,  but  he  must  also  appeal  to  the  emotions  in  such  a 
way  as  to  persuade  his  hearer  to  take  some  definite  action  in 
regard  to  the  subject  of  dispute.    Thus  there  are  two  things 


DEFINITION  OF  ARGUMENTATION  7 

which  the  debater  must  attempt — conviction  and  persuasion. 
If  he  convinces  his  hearer  without  persuading  him,  no  action 
is  likely  to  follow.  If  he  persuades  his  hearer  by  appealing 
to  his  emotions,  the  effect  of  his  efforts  will  be  short  lived. 
Therefore,  the  debater  must  train  himself  to  persuade  his 
hearer  to  act  in  accordance  with  his  wishes  as  well  as  to  find 
reasons  for  such  action  and  give  them. 

Finally,  debating  cultivates  the  ability  to  use  clear  and 
forcible  language.  Practice  of  this  kind  gives  the  student  a 
wealth  of  expression  and  a  command  of  language  which  is 
not  otherwise  possible.  The  obHgation  to  reply  directly  to 
one's  opponents  makes  it  necessary  for  the  student  to  have 
such  command  of  his  material  that  he  can  make  it  apply 
directly  to  the  arguments  he  has  just  heard. 

The  educational  value  of  debating  is  greater  than  that  of 
any  other  form  of  oral  or  written  composition  because  it  cul- 
tivates: (i)  The  command  of  feeling  and  concentration  of 
thought  which  keep  the  mind  healthily  active,  (2)  The  ability 
to  state  a  clear-cut  proposition,  and  to  analyze  it  keenly  by 
sifting  the  essential  from  the  trivial,  thus  revealing  the  real 
point  at  issue,  (3)  The  ability  to  find  reasons  and  give  them, 
(4)  The  power  to  state  facts  and  conditions  with  that  tact  and 
diplomacy  which  success  demands,  (5)  The  power  to  persuade 
as  well  as  convince,  (6)  The  power  of  clear  and  forcible  ex- 
pression. Certainly  any  subject  which  tends  to  develop 
these  qualities  ought  to  receive  the  most  careful  attention 
of  the  student. 

IV.  Practical  importance  of  argumentation. 

From  the  practical  standpoint  no  study  offers  better  prep- 
aration for  the  everyday  affairs  of  life  than  does  argiunenta- 
tion  and  debate.  Success  in  life  is  largely  a  matter  of  re- 
ducing every  situation  to  a  definite,  clear-cut  proposition, 
analyzing  that  proposition  or  picking  out  the  main  points 


8  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

at  issue,  and  then  directing  one's  efforts  to  the  solution  of  the 
problem  thus  revealed.  To  be  more  concrete:  One  young 
man  accepts  the  first  situation  which  is  brought  to  his  notice 
when  he  graduates,  and  stays  in  a  mediocre  position  for  years; 
another  young  man  thinks  carefully  over  the  matter,  picks 
out  a  place  where  he  is  most  likely  to  succeed,  and  secures 
rapid  promotion.  Instances  might  be  multiplied  indefinitely 
to  show  the  practical  value  of  argumentative  training.  The 
man  who  is  an  expert  in  the  use  of  argument  holds  the  master 
key  to  success  in  all  Hues.  It  is  an  invaluable  asset  to  every 
one  who  has  to  deal  with  practical  affairs.  It  matters  not 
whether  you  are  to  address  one  individual  or  a  thousand — 
whether  you  wish  to  persuade  to  a  certain  course  of  action, 
your  employer,  a  committee,  a  board  of  directors,  a  town 
council,  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  or  an  auditorium  full 
of  people,  knowledge  of  the  use  and  application  of  the  rules  of 
argumentation,  and  good  training  in  the  art  of  debate  is  a 
most  valuable  asset.  The  business  world,  the  professional 
world,  and  the  political  world  eagerly  welcome  the  man 
who  can  think  and  who  can  effectively  present  his  thoughts. 
In  every  business,  in  every  profession,  and  in  every  depart- 
ment of  government  the  skilled  debater  becomes  the  leader 
of  men. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  PROPOSITION 

I.  The  subject-matter  of  the  proposition. 

Argumentation  demands  a  definite  concrete  subject.  This 
subject  must  be  one  about  which  there  is  a  dispute;  as  for 
example,  the  Hquor  question.  There  is  a  great  controversy 
as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  in  this  matter.  Many  people 
contend  that  Prohibition,  or  the  absolute  forbidding  of  the 
making  or  selling  of  all  intoxicating  liquors,  is  the  best  method 
of  procedure.  On  the  other  hand  many  people  contend  that 
High  License,  or  the  regulating  of  the  sale  of  such  liquor,  is 
the  best  method  of  procedure.  This  is  a  proper  subject  for  a 
written  argument  or  an  oral  debate,  because  the  writer  or 
speaker  may  take  either  Prohibition  or  High  License  and 
show  why,  and  in  what  way,  it  would  benefit  the  community. 
If  he  defends  Prohibition  he  must  prove  that  it  will  benefit 
the  community  more  than  High  License.  If  he  defends  High 
License  he  must  prove  that  it  will  benefit  the  community 
more  than  Prohibition.  This  example  illustrates  what  is 
meant  by  a  definite,  concrete  subject  about  which  there  is  a 
dispute. 

In  selecting  a  subject  for  debate  the  following  requirements 
should  be  carefully  observed: 

I.  The  subject  must  he  interesting. 

The  subject  must  be  one  in  which  both  speaker  and  au- 
dience have  a  real  interest.  If  the  argument  is  written  the 
subject  must  be  one  in  which  the  readers  are  interested. 

9 


lo  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

With  this  object  in  view,  the  question  selected  should  be 
practical  rather  than  theoretical.  That  is,  it  should  be  a 
question  the  final  determination  of  which  will  affect  the  wel- 
fare of  the  individual,  the  community,  or  the  nation.  No 
longer  can  interest  be  aroused  in  a  discussion  of  whether  the 
pen  is  mightier  than  the  sword,  or  whether  fire  is  more  de- 
structive than  water.  Objectionable  in  like  manner  are  the 
following  questions  taken  from  a  book  on  debating  published 
in  1869:  "Who  is  the  most  useful  to  society:  the  farmer  or 
the  mechanic?",  "From  which  do  we  derive  the  greatest 
amount  of  pleasure:  hope  or  memory?",  "Are  lawyers  a 
benefit  or  a  curse  to  society?",  "Is  there  more  pleasure  in 
the  pursuit  than  in  the  possession  of  a  desired  object?", 
"Who  most  deserves  the  esteem  of  mankind:  the  poet,  the 
statesman,  or  the  warrior?",  and  "Whether  there  is  more 
pleasure  derived  from  the  eye  or  the  ear?"  These  and  all 
similar  subjects  should  be  avoided  chiefly  because  they  lack 
interest,  since  no  practical  result  can  follow  their  determina- 
tion. As  well  might  one  try  to  interest  a  modern  audience 
in  the  discussions  of  the  ancient  schoolmen,  who  grew  elo- 
quent over  a  dispute  as  to  how  many  angels  could  dance  on 
the  point  of  a  needle,  whether  there  could  be  two  hills  with- 
out an  intervening  valley,  and  whether  God  could  make  a 
yardstick  with  only  one  end.  If  men  are  to  be  interested  the 
speaker  or  writer  must  get  close  to  the  questions  which  affect 
their  everyday  life  at  home  and  at  work.  If  he  does  this  and 
his  ideas  are  worth  defending  he  will  always  find  willing 
hearers  and  readers. 

Among  interesting  subjects  for  debate,  questions  of  a  local 
character  hold  an  important  place.  The  advisability  of 
building  a  town  hall,  an  athletic  field,  or  a  new  bridge  is  very 
often  more  productive  of  genuine  interest  than  some  weighty 
problem  of  national  politics.  Such  questions  come  close  to 
the  tax-payers  and  residents  of  any  community,  and  at  the 


THE  PROPOSITION  II 

same  time  appeal  to  their  pride,  prejudice,  and  ambition. 
If  the  student  will  but  look  about  him  he  will  find  an  abun- 
dance of  controverted  local  matter  which  will  furnish  excel- 
lent subjects  for  oral  or  written  arguments. 

After  the  student  has  exhausted  local  subjects  he  may 
turn  his  attention  to  the  broader  controversies  of  state  and 
nation.  Here  the  questions  of  taxation,  tariflf,  commerce, 
and  international  affairs  afford  ample  scope  for  the  full 
development  of  the  debater's  powers.  The  list  of  subjects 
in  the  appendix  may  be  found  helpful  in  making  a  proper 
selection,  but  preference  should  always  be  given  to  questions 
in  which  the  people  at  large  are  showing  an  active  interest 
at  the  time  of  the  debate.  What  this  interest  is  may  be  deter- 
mined by  consulting  the  current  numbers  of  the  most  widely 
circulating  magazines  and  newspapers,  such  as  the  "Inde- 
pendent," "Nation,"  "Harper's  Weekly,"  and  the  various 
city  newspapers. 

2.  Subjects  for  first  practice  should  he  those  of  which  the  debater 
has  a  general  knowledge. 

Since  the  object  of  the  first  few  debates  is  to  make  the 
student  familiar  with  rules  and  forms,  the  subjects  chosen 
should  be  within  the  range  of  his  information  and  experience. 
For  this  purpose  subjects  of  a  local  character  are  best  adapted. 
The  student  should  have  had  some  actual  practice  in  debating 
before  he  attempts  to  take  up  questions  which  require  ex- 
tended investigation.  Such  propositions  as  those  relating  to 
the  tariff,  taxation,  municipal  problems,  and  Federal  control 
of  industrial  and  commercial  activities  should  be  reserved 
for  more  mature  efforts. 

The  following  subjects  are  fair  examples  of  desirable  ques- 
tions for  first  practice:  (i)  Should  students  who  attain  a 
rank  of  ninety  per  cent,  or  higher,  in  their  daily  work  be 
excused  from  examinations?,  (2)  Should  gymnasium  work 


12  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

be  made  compulsory?,  (3)  Should  first  year  students  at ■ 

be  allowed  to  engage  in  intercollegiate  athletics?,  (4)  Should 
the  class  rushes  at  the  beginning  of  the  college  year  be  dis- 
continued?, (5)  Should  the  game  of  football  be  aboUshed? 

3.  The  subject  must  he  debatable. 

If  the  first  two  requirements  in  regard  to  the  choosing  of  a 
subject  are  observed  it  is  not  probable  that  the  question  will 
be  undebatable.  However,  since  it  is  always  advisable  to 
keep  as  far  as  may  be  from  one-sided  questions,  it  is  well  to 
give  this  requirement  some  consideration. 

In  the  first  place,  the  question  must  not  be  obviously  true 
or  obviously  false.  The  clearest  examples  of  subjects  objec- 
tionable because  obviously  true  are  found  in  geometry.  It 
is  plain  that  an  intelligent  debate  cannot  be  held  on  the  pro- 
position, ''Resolved,  that  the  sum  of  the  three  angles  of  a 
triangle  is  always  equal  to  two  right  angles."  Equally  useless 
from  the  standpoint  of  argumentation  is  it  to  dispute  that 
"All  men  are  mortal,"  that  "Huxley  was  a  great  scientist," 
or  that  "Health  is  more  desirable  than  sickness."  Neverthe- 
less questions  just  as  obvious  as  these  are  sometimes  debated 
because  their  real  character  is  concealed  under  cover  of  con- 
fused language.  The  following  question  is  a  good  example 
of  this,  "Resolved,  that  breach  of  trust  in  high  office  is  repre- 
hensible." A  moment's  thought  will  convince  the  reader 
that  such  a  proposition  is  not  debatable  because  obviously 
true.  On  the  other  hand  propositions  which  are  obviously 
false  are  sometimes  worded  so  as  to  have  an  appearance  of 
validity.  Such  is  the  following,  "Resolved,  that  the  only 
way  to  benefit  humanity  is  to  destroy  the  trusts."  To  prove 
this  proposition  it  is  necessary  to  show  that  education,  reli- 
gion, and  commerce  cannot  be  made  to  benefit  humanity. 
The  proposition  is  not  debatable  because  it  is  obviously  false. 

In  the  second  place,  the  question  must  be  one  which  is 


THE  PROPOSITION  13 

capable  of  approximate  proof.  It  is  not  debatable  if  it  can- 
not be  proved  approximately  true  or  false.  The  debater 
must  be  able,  by  means  of  reasoning  based  upon  the  facts  of 
the  case,  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  either  for  or  against  the 
proposition.  To  make  this  possible,  there  must  be  a  common 
standard  of  comparison.  This  common  standard  does  not 
exist  in  the  proposition  "Resolved,  that  the  lawyer  is  of  more 
use  to  society  than  the  doctor,"  because  their  work  is  entirely 
unlike  and  both  are  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  modern 
society.  On  the  other  hand  it  does  exist  in  the  proposition 
"Resolved,  that  Federal  control  of  Hfe  insurance  companies 
is  preferable  to  State  control."  This  question  hinges  on  the 
comparative  efficiency  of  the  two  means  of  control,  namely, — ■ 
Federal  and  State,  both  of  which  are  governmental  in  charac- 
ter. Therefore  a  common  standard  of  comparison  exists 
which  enables  the  debater  to  show  why  one  or  the  other 
method  should  be  adopted. 

Thus  far  we  have  dealt  with  the  subject-matter  of  the  prop- 
osition and  have  seen  that  it  must  meet  the  three  foregoing 
requirements.  We  must  now  turn  our  attention  to  the 
phrasing  of  this  subject  in  such  a  way  that  it  will  form  a 
suitable  proposition  for  debate. 

SUMMARY    OF    REQUIREMENTS    FOR    THE    SUBJECT-MATTER    OF    A 
PROPOSITION 

1.  The  subject  must  be  interesting. 

2.  Subjects  for  first  practice  should  be  those  of  which  the  de- 

bater has  a  general  knowledge. 

3.  The  subject  must  be  debatable. 

II.  The  wording  of  the  proposition. 

To  those  unfamiliar  with  the  art  of  debate  it  often  seems 
that  when  the  subject  is  chosen  but  a  moment's  time  is  re- 
quired to  whip  it  into  the  form  of  an  acceptable  proposition 
for  a  debate.    This,  however,  is  not  the  case;  the  work  is  only 


14  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

half  done.  After  an  interesting,  suitable,  and  debatable 
subject  has  been  chosen  there  still  remains  the  important 
task  of  expressing  that  subject  in  proper  form. 

The  subject  for  debate  should  be  stated  in  the  form  of  a 
resolution.  One  form  of  such  resolution  would  be,  "Re- 
solved, that  the  Federal  government  should  levy  a  progres- 
sive income  tax."  A  mere  statement  of  the  subject  is  not 
enough.  One  may  write  a  description  of  ''The  Panama 
Canal,"  or  a  narrative  on  "The  Adventures  of  a  Civil  En- 
gineer in  Panama,"  or  an  exposition  on  "The  Cost  of  Build- 
ing the  Panama  Canal,"  but  for  an  argument  one  must  take 
one  side  or  the  other  of  a  resolution,  as  for  example,  "Re- 
solved, that  the  United  States  should  fortify  the  Panama 
Canal."  This  resolution  is  usually  termed  the  Proposition, 
and  corresponds  to  the  motion,  resolution,  or  bill  presented 
in  deliberative  assemblies  such  as  state  legislatures  or  the 
branches  of  Congress.  The  proposition  must  contain  one 
definite  issue.  In  it  there  must  be  no  ambiguous  words  or 
phrases.  Otherwise  the  debate  is  liable  to  degenerate  into 
a  mere  quibble  over  words  or  a  dispute  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  proposition.  Hence  no  issues  will  be  squarely  joined  and 
after  the  debate  is  over,  neither  the  debaters,  the  judges,  nor 
the  audience  wiU  feel  satisfied  or  have  reason  to  believe  that 
any  progress  has  been  made  toward  a  right  solution  of  the 
question. 

The  proposition  for  debate  should  be  worded  in  accordance 
with  the  following  rules: 

I.  The  proposition  should  he  so  narrowed  as  to  embody  only  one 
central  idea. 
In  the  beginning  there  is  always  a  tendency  to  make  the 
proposition  cover  too  broad  a  field.  This  is  rather  a  defect 
of  wording  than  of  subject-matter.  Let  us  take  a  proposition 
which  is  too  broad,  and  narrow  it  so  that  it  will  contain  but 


THE  PROPOSITION  l$ 

a  single  idea.  For  this  purpose  we  may  select  the  proposition, 
"Resolved,  that  freshmen  should  not  be  permitted  to  take 
part  in  athletics."  As  it  stands,  this  proposition  includes  all 
freshmen  everywhere  and  prohibits  them  from  taking  part 
in  athletics  of  every  kind.  In  other  words  the  field  which  it 
covers  is  too  broad.  The  proposition  treats  of  two  things, 
freshmen  and  athletics.  Let  us  first  make  the  provision  in 
regard  to  freshmen  definite,  that  is,  narrow  it  down  to  a  field 
with  definite  limits.  We  can  do  this  by  making  it  apply  only 
to  the  freshmen  of  Columbia  University  or  of  any  other 
specified  institution.  Thus  the  collecting  of  material  as  well 
as  the  determination  of  the  issues  involved  becomes  a  much 
simpler  matter.  In  the  second  place  let  us  make  the  provision 
in  regard  to  athletics  more  definite.  As  the  proposition 
stands  it  excludes  freshmen  from  all  athletics  whatsoever, 
including  inter-class  and  inter-society  as  well  as  intercolle- 
giate. Here  again  the  field  is  too  wide  and  some  restriction 
must  be  placed  upon  the  subject-matter.  Therefore  we  in- 
sert the  word  "intercollegiate"  before  the  word  "athletics" 
in  order  that  the  field  for  discussion  may  be  narrowed  down 
to  a  single,  definite  issue.  With  these  modifications  the  prop- 
osition now  stands,  "Resolved,  that  freshmen  at  Columbia 
University  should  not  be  permitted  to  take  part  in  intercol- 
legiate athletics,"  which  is  an  entirely  satisfactory  proposi- 
tion because  it  narrows  the  field  of  discussion  to  one  definite, 
central  idea. 

Though  this  difficulty  will  doubtless  present  itself  in  a 
variety  of  forms,  the  principles  stated  above  as  well  as  the 
illustration,  if  kept  in  mind  by  the  student,  will  enable  him 
to  keep  clear  of  this  fault.  '.'.'■'- f'j  .,  ,  ^^,  ^  ^ 

2.  The  proposition  should  be  stated  in  the  affirmative. 

The  first  argument  is  always  presented  by  the  affirmative. 
Upon  the  affirmative  rests  the  burden  of  proof  and  if  the  af- 


l6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

firmative  proves  nothing  the  decision  goes  to  the  negative. 
"He  who  affirms  must  prove."  The  affirmative  has  the  bur- 
den of  proving  the  proposition  to  be  true,  the  negative  that  of 
proving  it  false.  Therefore  the  proposition  must  be  worded 
in  the  affirmative.  This  insures  that  some  progress  will  have 
been  made  at  the  end  of  the  first  speech. 

The  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  party  who  has  the  risk 
of  non-persuasion.  The  risk  of  non-persuasion  rests  upon 
the  party  who  would  fail  if  no  evidence  were  introduced. 
We  have  seen  that  the  affirmative  would  fail  if  no  evidence 
were  introduced,  because  he  who  alleges  must  prove.  There- 
fore the  risk  of  non-persuasion  rests  on  the  affirmative.  To 
be  more  concrete,  if  you  are  attempting  to  prove  to  a  friend 
that  he  ought  to  do  (or  ought  not  to  do)  a  certain  thing,  you 
take  the  risk  of  not  persuading  him  to  do  the  thing  that  you 
ask,  i.  e.  the  risk  of  non-persuasion  is  on  you.  Likewise  the 
salesman  who  approaches  a  customer  with  the  purpose  of 
selling  him  a  bill  of  goods  incurs  this  same  risk  of  non-per- 
suasion, because  he  may  not  be  able  to  induce  the  customer 
to  buy.  Since,  as  in  the  above  cases,  the  affirmative  must  be 
given  a  chance  to  prove  something  before  the  negative  can 
reply,  the  proposition  should  always  be  worded  in  the  af- 
firmative. 

J.  The  proposition  should  contain  no  ambiguous  words. 

After  the  proposition  has  been  narrowed  down  to  a  single 
idea  and  has  then  been  stated  in  the  affirmative,  it  should  be 
carefully  scrutinized  in  order  to  determine  whether  it  con- 
tains any  ambiguous  words.  Ambiguous  words  have  a  mean- 
ing so  broad  that  they  may  be  taken  in  more  than  one  sense. 
Such  a  word  is  "Anarchist."  This  word  may  refer  to  a  law- 
less individual  bent  on  assassination,  or  to  a  peaceable  in- 
dividual who  has  merely  the  beliefs  of  an  anarchist  with  no 
intention  of  putting  them  into  practice.    Almost  all  general 


THE  PROPOSITION  17 

terms  such  as  "Anarchist,"  "Monroe  Doctrine,"  "Civiliza- 
tion," "PoHcy,"  and  "Trusts,"  should  be  avoided  because 
they  tend  to  make  the  proposition  ambiguous.  When  such 
terms  are  used  they  should  be  almost  invariably  accompanied 
by  explanatory  words.  The  words  selected  for  use  in  the 
proposition  should  have  but  one  meaning  and  should  be  so 
plain  that  there  can  be  no  reasonable  dispute  as  to  their 
significance.  If  this  rule  is  not  comphed  with  the  discussion 
will  become  a  foolish  quibble  over  the  meaning  of  the  proposi- 
tion rather  than  an  intelligent  debate  upon  the  merits  of  the 
question. 

In  the  question,  "Resolved,  that  trusts  should  be  sup- 
pressed by  law,"  there  are  three  ambiguous  words,  (i)  trusts, 
(2)  suppressed,  and  (3)  law.  While  these  words  may  not  be 
ambiguous  in  ordinary  speaking  or  writing,  they  are  not 
sufficiently  definite  to  be  used  in  a  proposition.  The  word 
"Trust"  has  several  meanings  and  several  shades  of  mean- 
ing. Among  these  is  the  meaning  which  has  recently  been 
given  to  it,  indicating  a  combination  of  firms  engaged  in  some 
special  line  of  business,  as  for  example,  "The  Sugar  Trust", 
"The  Oil  Trust",  "The  Steel  Trust",  etc.  Even  this  one 
meaning  has  different  variations.  The  term  "trust"  as  used 
in  this  sense  may  refer  to  a  mere  combination  of  manufac- 
turers, to  a  monopoly,  or  to  a  monopoly  in  restraint  of  trade. 
In  order  to  make  the  meaning  of  the  proposition  clear  we 
may  strike  out  the  ambiguous  term  "trusts"  and  insert 
"  monopolies  in  restraint  of  trade." 

The  word  "suppressed"  in  this  connection  may  have  two 
well  defined  meanings.  It  may  mean  either  destruction  or 
regulation.  If  the  intent' is  that  the  question  shall  hinge  on 
whether  or  not  monopolies  in  restraint  of  trade  should  be  de- 
stroyed or  wiped  out  altogether,  the  word  "dissolved"  or 
"destroyed"  should  be  used.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
intended  that  the  issue  shall  be  whether  such  organizations 


l8  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

be  allowed  to  exist  in  their  present  form,  but  subject  to 
governmental  regulation  which  will  suppress  their  evil  effects 
on  trade,  the  word  "regiilated"  should  be  used.  For  the 
purpose  in  hand  let  us  choose  the  latter  meaning. 

The  term  "law"  is  also  somewhat  ambiguous,  because 
there  is  more  than  one  legal  agency  which  could  deal  with 
such  organizations.  Therefore  we  will  make  plain  which 
agency  is  intended  by  modifying  the  word  "law"  by  the 
word  "Federal."  This  makes  the  proposition,  as  corrected, 
read,  "Resolved,  that  monopolies  in  restraint  of  trade  should 
be  regulated  by  Federal  law."  The  proposition  as  thus 
worded  is  fairly  free  from  ambiguity  and  leaves  little  oppor- 
tunity for  quibbling  over  the  meaning  of  the  words  in  which 
it  is  stated. 

The  proposition  must  be  so  worded  as  to  have  the  same 
meaning  for  both  the  affirmative  and  the  negative,  and  this 
meaning  must  be  absolutely  clear  and  unambiguous. 

4.  The  proposition  should  he  worded  as  briefly  and  simply  as  is 
consistent  with  the  foregoing  requirements. 

After  the  proposition  has  been  worded  in  accordance  with 
the  foregoing  rules  it  should  be  carefully  scrutinized  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  there  is  a  simpler  form  in  which  it  may 
be  cast  without  sacrificing  any  of  its  excellencies.  The  sim- 
pler the  wording  of  the  proposition  the  easier  will  be  the  work 
of  determining  the  main  issues  and  the  subsequent  work  of 
preparing  the  argument. 

In  dealing  with  broad  general  problems  such  as  questions 
of  finance,  commerce,  and  taxation,  it  sometimes  happens 
that  some  issue  is  brought  in  which  is  aside  from  the  real 
merits  of  the  controversy  and  yet  so  vitally  connected  with 
it  as  to  be  logically  inseparable.  Either  side  may  present 
such  material,  with  disastrous  results  if  their  opponents  have 
dealt  solely  with  the  real  merits  of  the  controversy.    An  in- 


THE  PROPOSITION  19 

stance  of  this  difficulty  appeared  in  the  debates  of  one  of  the 
Inter-State  leagues.  For  three  or  four  successive  years  the 
questions  chosen  for  the  annual  debates  were  of  the  character 
indicated  above.  In  many  of  the  debates  one  or  the  other 
side  of  the  controversy  would  bring  up  the  constitutionality 
of  the  proposed  measures.  The  charge  would  be  made  that 
the  proposition  could  not  be  decided  in  the  affirmative  be- 
cause the  proposed  measure  was  contrary  to  the  constitution 
of  the  United  States.  In  almost  every  case  this  question 
vitally  affected  the  final  adoption  of  the  resolution,  although 
it  could  well  be  excluded  from  a  discussion  on  the  merits  of 
the  problem.  The  question  was  especially  exasperating, 
inasmuch  as  the  judges  for  the  debates  were  almost  always 
selected  from  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  states 
composing  the  league  and  from  the  Federal  Courts,  It  was 
finally  determined  by  the  official  board  of  the  league  to  ap- 
pend the  phrase  "  Constitutionality  conceded,"  to  all  proposi- 
tions in  which  there  was  any  likelihood  that  the  question  of 
constitutionality  could  be  made  an  issue.  Thus  in  one  in- 
stance the  proposition  adopted  was,  "Resolved,  that  the 
Federal  Government  should  levy  a  progressive  inheritance 
tax.    Constitutionality  conceded." 

This  did  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the  simple  wording 
of  the  proposition,  and  it  did  effectually  prevent  the  debate 
from  hinging  on  an  issue  which  would  have  prevented  a  full 
discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  question.  This  method  of 
excluding  undesirable  matter  is  preferable  to  an  attempt  to 
include  any  restriction  in  the  body  of  the  proposition.  The 
latter  method  is  quite  likely  to  lead  to  difficulties,  in  the  form 
of  ambiguities  and  their  attendant  evils,  almost  impossible 
to  foresee  when  the  proposition  is  framed. 

In  conclusion,  the  debater  must  not  forget  that  time  spent 
in  selecting  a  proper  subject  and  wording  it  in  accordance 
with  the  foregoing  rules  is  time  well  spent.    It  will  make  the 


20  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

great  task  which  Hes  before  him  much  easier,  and  it  will  en- 
able him  to  arrive  at  definite  conclusions. 

SUMMARY  or  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  WORDING  THE  PROPOSITION 

1.  The  proposition  should  be  so  narrowed  as  to  embody  only 

one  central  idea. 

2.  The  proposition  should  be  stated  in  the  affirmative. 

3.  The  proposition  should  contain  no  ambiguous  words. 

4.  The  proposition  should  be  worded  as  briefly  and  simply  as  is 

consistent  with  the  foregoing  rules. 

EXERCISES    IN    SELECTING    AND    PHRASING    THE    PROPOSITION 

1.  Write  out  three  propositions  in  accordance  with  the  rules 
stated  in  this  chapter.  The  subject-matter  of  these  propositions 
should  be  purely  local  in  character  as  suggested  in  the  first  and 
second  sections. 

2.  Phrase,  in  proper  form,  one  proposition  on  each  of  the  fol- 
lowing subjects. 

A.  Sunday  baseball. 

B.  Interstate  commerce. 

C.  Labor  unions. 

D.  United  States  Senators. 

E.  Prohibition. 

F.  Reciprocity. 

3.  Apply  the  appropriate  rules  to  each  of  the  following  proposi- 
tions and  point  out  where  each  is  defective. 

Resolved,  that — 

A.  We  derive  more  pleasure  from  hope  than  from  memory. 

B.  Wit  and  humor  are  the  same. 

C.  Education  ought  to  be  compulsory. 

D.  The  law  is  a  better  profession  than  medicine. 

E.  The  Federal  Government  should  levy  a  tax  on  large  in- 
comes and  limit  the  amount  of  wealth  which  one  man  may 
possess. 

F.  It  is  expedient  for  the  United  States  to  build  a  larger  navy. 


CHAPTER  III 

ANALYZING   THE   PROPOSITION 

I.  The  importance  of  analysis. 

The  subject  for  argument  has  been  determined  and  it  has 
been  reduced  to  a  satisfactory  proposition.  The  next  step 
is  to  analyze  this  proposition.  It  is  well  to  consider  first  the 
importance  of  this  analysis  in  order  that  its  true  value  may 
be  appreciated,  and  this  preliminary  step  be  not  passed  over 
hurriedly.  Upon  the  success  of  the  analysis  depends  in  large 
measure  the  success  of  the  argument.  This  is  true  because 
the  analysis  shows  just  what  must  be  proved  in  order  to 
sustain  or  overthrow  the  proposition.  If  the  work  has  been 
done  carefully  the  student  will  have  confidence  in  the  solidity 
of  his  argument.  He  cannot  feel  secure  if  he  suspects  that 
his  analysis  is  defective. 

The  question  of  analysis  is  not  only  of  supreme  importance 
in  relation  to  a  particular  proposition  for  discussion,  but  it  is 
also  of  the  greatest  importance  in  all  the  practical  affairs  of 
life.  No  mental  quality  is  so  necessary  as  the  analytical  habit 
of  mind.  Practically  all  the  men  whom  history  calls  great 
have  possessed  in  a  large  degree  the  habit  of  analyzing  every- 
thing. Lincoln  was  in  the  habit  of  applying  this  analytical 
process  not  only  to  great  afifairs  of  state  but  to  anything  and 
everything  which  came  beneath  his  notice.  He  analyzed  the 
actions  of  his  fellow  men,  the  workings  of  a  machine,  the 
nature  of  moral  principles,  and  the  significance  of  political 
movements.  He  was  continually  penetrating  to  the  point  of 
things,  visible  and  invisible,  and  laying  it  bare. 


22  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

Everything  which  comes  up  for  personal  action  should  be 
analyzed  and  the  vital  point  at  issue  determined.  Nothing 
should  be  done  blindly  or  in  a  spirit  of  trusting  to  luck  or 
chance.  Instead  of  voting  as  the  majority  seem  to  be  voting 
in  a  class  meeting,  analyze  the  issue  and  vote  according  to  the 
light  revealed  by  that  analysis.  Instead  of  entering  some 
business  or  profession  blindly  and  in  the  hope  that  something 
will  turn  up,  analyze  the  situation  and  determine  rationally 
what  ought  to  be  done.  For  the  right  determination  of  these 
practical  affairs  no  better  preparation  can  be  made  than  the 
careful  analysis  of  propositions  for  debate. 

II.  Essential  steps  in  analysis. 

I.  A  broad  view  of  the  subject. 

In  the  first  place  the  student  must  know  something  about 
the  subject-matter  of  the  proposition.  If  the  question  is  of  a 
local  character  and  one  with  which  he  is  familiar,  the  work  of 
analysis  may  be  begun  at  once.  The  proposition  can  be 
scrutinized,  its  exact  meaning  determined,  and  the  proof  for 
its  establishment  or  overthrow  decided  upon.  If  the  question 
be  one  with  which  the  student  is  not  familiar  his  first  duty  is 
to  become  acquainted  in  a  general  way  with  the  subject- 
matter.  He  should  carefully  examine  the  proposition  to  see 
just  what  subject-matter  is  included  and  then  consult  some- 
one familiar  with  its  substance,  or  read  some  material  which 
appears  to  treat  the  subject  in  a  general  way.  Here  confusion 
is  likely  to  result  if  an  attempt  is  made  to  substitute  reading 
for  thinking.  The  mind  of  the  investigator  should  be  kept 
open,  free,  and  independent.  He  should  not  allow  the  opin- 
ions of  men,  either  oral  or  written,  to  cause  him  to  depart 
from  the  precise  wording  of  the  proposition.  His  present 
object  is  to  determine  its  limits,  meaning  and  significance. 

When  a  general  knowledge  of  the  subject  has  been  ac- 
quired, sufiicient  to  enable  the  student  to  reason  about  the 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  23 

question,  he  should  next  consider  the  origin  and  history  of 
the  question. 

2.  The  origin  and  history  of  the  question. 

The  meaning  of  a  question  must  be  determined  in  the  light 
of  the  conditions  which  gave  rise  to  its  discussion.  For  this 
reason  it  is  well  to  find  out  just  how  this  question  came  to  be 
a  subject  of  debate.  For  example,  the  people  of  this  country 
a  few  years  ago  were  debating  the  proposition,  "Resolved, 
that  the  Federal  Government  should  control  all  life  insurance 
companies  operating  within  the  United  States."  To  one 
unacquainted  with  the  facts  of  the  case  at  that  time  the  prop- 
osition appears  at  first  glance  to  lack  point.  Why  should 
anyone  want  Federal  control  of  insurance  companies?  What 
difference  does  it  make  as  to  who  controls  them  or  whether 
they  are  controlled  at  all?  These  questions  are  answered 
directly  when  we  come  to  study  the  origin  of  the  proposition. 
Until  within  a  few  months  of  the  discussions  no  one  had 
thought  of  debating  this  proposition.  The  insurance  com- 
panies had  always  been  under  the  control  of  the  states  in 
which  they  operated.  Then  suddenly  it  came  to  light  that 
these  companies  were  grossly  mismanaged.  Dishonesty  had 
characterized  the  administration  of  their  affairs.  This  served 
to  cast  grave  doubt  on  the  efi&ciency  of  state  control.  There- 
fore the  stronger  arm  of  the  Federal  government  was  sug- 
gested as  a  remedy  for  the  evils  which  the  states  had  been 
unable  to  prevent.  The  real  heart  of  the  controversy,  which 
a  study  of  the  origin  of  the  question  revealed  was  "Will  the 
control  of  insurance  companies  by  the  Federal  government 
be  more  efficient  than  that  exercised  by  the  state  govern- 
ments? "  Thus  the  real  point  at  issue  was  made  clear  through 
the  origin  of  the  question. 

In  the  search  for  the  main  issues,  the  history  of  the  ques- 
tion is  often  important.    However,  the  tendency  of  the  in- 


24  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

experienced  debater  is  to  dwell  too  long  upon  this  part  of  the 
argument.  Actual  practice  often  reveals  the  fact  that  such 
a  history  causes  the  audience  or  reader  to  lose  interest.  This 
is  especially  true  if  its  bearing  on  the  argument  is  not  im- 
mediately shown. 

The  history  of  the  question  should,  however,  receive  serious 
consideration,  and  any  facts  which  bear  directly  upon  its 
solution  should  be  stated  in  brief  and  concise  form.  When 
the  question  has  undergone  a  change  because  of  shifting 
conditions,  its  history  becomes  especially  important.  Very 
often  the  original  significance  of  a  controversy  becomes  en- 
tirely changed  by  subsequent  happenings.  In  such  a  case 
the  history  of  the  question  should  be  resorted  to  for  the  pur- 
pose of  finding  out  the  changes  through  which  the  original 
dispute  has  passed  and  determining  the  exact  issues  involved 
at  the  present  time. 

J.  Definition  of  terms. 

Before  proceeding  farther  it  is  well  to  examine  each  word 
in  the  proposition.  Now  that  a  general  idea  of  the  significance 
of  the  proposition  has  been  obtained,  and  the  main  point  of 
the  controversy  reached  through  the  study  of  the  origin  and 
history  of  the  question,  the  task  of  defining  terms  may  be 
undertaken  in  an  intelligent  manner. 

Let  it  be  understood  at  the  outset  that  a  dictionary  defini- 
tion is  not  satisfactory.  A  dictionary  gives  every  meaning 
which  can  be  attached  to  a  given  word  and  thus  covers  a 
broad,  general  field.  But  when  a  word  is  used  in  a  proposi- 
tion for  debate  it  is  used  in  a  special  and  restricted  sense.  The 
meaning  depends  largely  on  the  context  of  the  proposition. 
The  origin  and  history  of  the  question,  the  meaning  which 
expert  writers  on  this  particular  subject  have  attached  to 
the  words,  and  the  present  conditions  must  be  considered 
in  determining  the  precise  meaning  of  the  terms. 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  2$ 

The  words  of  a  proposition  which  need  definition  are  very 
often  so  grouped  that  the  meaning  of  a  phrase  or  combination 
of  words  taken  as  a  whole  must  be  determined.  Here  it  is 
plain  that  dictionary  definitions,  even  if  satisfactory  in  other 
respects,  would  be  entirely  inadequate.  In  the  question  in 
the  last  chapter,  "Resolved,  that  monopolies  in  restraint  of 
trade  should  be  regulated  by  Federal  law,"  we  find  a  necessity 
for  the  definition  of  both  a  term  and  a  phrase.  The  term 
''regulate"  may  not  in  this  instance  be  given  the  broad 
meaning  which  a  dictionary  definition  attaches  to  it.  We 
must  first  look  at  the  context  of  the  proposition  in  order 
to  find  out  to  what  field  of  authority  we  should  go  for  a 
proper  definition. 

The  proposition  specified  regulation  by  Federal  law;  there- 
fore we  must  go  to  the  law  for  our  definition  of  the  term  which 
indicates  the  action  the  law  is  to  take.  But  even  here  we 
need  not  be  satisfied  with  the  broad  legal  definition  of  the 
term  "regulate."  The  field  included  by  the  question  is 
obviously  a  commercial  field.  The  agencies  which  would 
come  under  this  regulation  are  for  the  most  part  engaged  in 
interstate  commerce.  Therefore  the  power  to  regulate  would 
be  placed  under  that  clause  of  the  United  States  constitution 
which  expressly  gives  Congress  the  power  to  regulate  com- 
merce. We  may  then  rely  upon  the  definition  which  the 
courts  have  placed  upon  the  term  "regulate"  when  used  in 
this  connection.  By  consulting  Black's  Constitutional  Law,^ 
an  eminent  authority  on  this  subject,  we  find  that  the  power 
to  "regulate"  has  never  been  held  to  include  the  power  to 
destroy.  This  eliminates  a  possible  meaning.  By  consulting 
some  of  the  decisions  of  the  United  States  courts  in  which 
this  term  has  been  defined,  we  are  given  to  understand  that 
to  "regulate"  commerce  implies  that  "an  intention  to  pro- 
mote and  facilitate  it,  and  not  to  hamper  or  destroy  it,  is  nat- 

ip.  194. 


26  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

urally  to  be  attributed  to  Congress."  {Texas  df  P.  R.  Co.  v. 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  162  U.  S.,  197;  Interstate 
Comm-erce  Commission  v.  Alabama  Midland  Ry.  Co.,  74  Fed., 
715).  Therefore  we  are  warranted  in  concluding  that  to 
"regulate"  in  this  proposition  means  such  control  by  the 
Federal  law  as  will  promote  the  best  commercial  interests  of 
the  country  at  large. 

It  is  thus  seen  that  both  the  definition  of  the  term  and  the 
source  from  which  it  is  taken  are  determined  by  the  context 
of  the  proposition.  If  the  context  of  the  proposition  shows 
that  legal  definitions  are  required,  legal  authorities  must  be 
consulted.  If  the  context  of  the  proposition  shows  that  an 
economic  definition  is  required,  economic  authorities  should 
be  consulted.  In  whatever  field  of  knowledge  the  context  of 
the  proposition  lies,  the  authoritative  definitions  generally 
accepted  in  these  branches  of  learning  should  be  con- 
sulted. 

In  defining  the  phrase  "monopolies  in  restraint  of  trade" 
the  student  should  consult  the  same  class  of  authorities 
utilized  in  defining  the  term  "regulate."  The  generally  ac- 
cepted definitions  used  by  prominent  writers  may  be  relied 
upon  with  safety,  since  they  are  usually  taken  directly  from 
authoritative  reports  and  decisions. 

One  of  the  most  important  requisites  of  a  definition  is  that 
it  be  reasonable.  It  must  appear,  in  the  light  of  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  to  be  the  most  obvious  and  natural 
definition  which  can  possibly  be  produced.  In  no  case  must 
it  appear  that  the  speaker  or  writer  has  laboriously  searched 
for  a  definition  which  will  conform  to  his  view  of  the  proposi- 
tion. Equally  fatal  is  a  highly  technical  definition  which  ig- 
nores its  evident  meaning.  No  trickery  based  upon  a  techni- 
cality should  be  tolerated.  The  definition  presented  must  be 
so  reasonable  that  everyone  concerned  (with  the  possible 
exception  of  one's  opponents)  will  willingly  admit  its  validity. 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  27 

4.  Narrowing  the  question. 

The  next  step  in  the  analysis  of  the  question  is  to  narrow 
it  down  to  the  points  which  must  be  proved.  Now  that  the 
meaning  of  the  question  is  well  understood  this  task  ought 
not  to  be  difficult.  Nevertheless  it  demands  the  most  earnest 
efforts  of  the  student.  There  are  two  steps  in  this  process, 
(a)  Excluding  irrelevant  matter,  (b)  Admitting  matters  not 
vital  to  the  argument. 

(a)  Excluding  irrelevant  matter. 

The  first  task  is  to  cut  away  all  surplusage.  The  proposi- 
tion as  it  now  stands,  should  be  closely  examined  in  order  to 
determine  just  what  must  be  proved.  Neither  the  affirma- 
tive nor  the  negative  should  undertake  the  burden  of  proving 
more  than  is  necessary.  In  the  discussion  of  the  proposition 
"Resolved,  that  Prohibition  is  preferable  to  High  License," 
it  is  not  necessary  for  the  affirmative  to  prove  that  temper- 
ance is  a  virtue.  The  task  before  these  debaters  is  to  show 
only  that  prohibition  is  preferable  to  high  hcense  as  a  method 
of  dealing  with  the  liquor  traffic.  It  is  not  necessary  for 
the  negative  to  attempt  to  prove  that  temperance  is  not  a 
virtue;  their  task  is  to  show  only  that  high  license  is  pref- 
erable to  prohibition.  It  is  true  that  temperance  as  an 
abstract  virtue  is  very  closely  related  to  the  subject-matter 
of  the  proposition,  but  it  is  not  one  of  the  real  points  at  issue. 
When  the  question  has  been  narrowed  down  to  the  method 
of  dealing  with  the  liquor  traffic,  each  side  may  prove  this 
point  in  the  way  which  appears  most  effective.  Each  may 
assert  that  its  method  of  control  is  preferable  because  theory 
and  practice  show  it  to  be  better  for  (a)  social,  (b)  political, 
and  (c)  economic  reasons.  Any  other  division  of  the  subject 
which  seems  effective  may  be  adopted. 

It  is  evident  from  the  above  illustration  that  certain  mat- 
ters which  are  relevant  to  the  general  subject  should  be 


28  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

eliminated  in  order  that  the  audience  may  understand  just 
what  must  be  proved.  Everything  that  is  not  relevant  to  the 
proposition  as  stated  should  be  excluded. 

(b)  Admitting  matters  not  vital  to  the  argument. 

Since  the  debater  should  not  attempt  to  prove  more  than 
is  necessary  he  should  admit,  in  the  beginning,  such  matters 
as  may  be  admitted  without  detriment.  Great  care  should 
be  exercised  at  this  point;  nothing  should  be  admitted  the 
full  bearing  and  significance  of  which  the  debater  does  not 
understand.  Only  matters  which  may  be  admitted  with 
safety  should  be  included.  Otherwise  an  opponent  may 
seize  upon  the  admitted  matter  and  turn  it  to  his  own  ad- 
vantage. Furthermore,  the  language  used  in  making  an 
admission  should  be  carefully  guarded  lest  an  opponent 
ingeniously  attach  to  it  a  meaning  which  was  not  intended. 

With  these  cautions  in  mind  it  is  well  to  continue  the  pro- 
cess of  narrowing  the  question  by  admitting  matters  not  vital 
to  the  argument.  These  admissions  should  be  made  in  the 
beginning  in  order  that  they  may  appear  in  their  true  light 
as  free  admissions.  For  example,  in  the  last  question  dis- 
cussed both  sides  may  safely  admit  that  neither  plan  will 
wholly  eliminate  intemperance.  The  object  is  to  adopt  the 
plan  which  will  minimize  the  effect  of  this  evil.  In  the  ques- 
tion, "Resolved,  that  physical  valuation  of  the  property  of  a 
corporation  is  the  best  basis  for  fixing  taxation  values,"  the 
afiirmative  may  safely  admit  that  no  basis  for  fixing  taxation 
values  will  work  absolute  justice  to  all  tax-payers.  This 
places  the  afiirmative  speakers  in  position  to  make  plain  to 
their  hearers  that  the  method  advocated  will  come  nearer  to 
the  goal  of  absolute  justice  than  any  other  plan.  In  advocat- 
ing any  reform  it  is  usually  best  to  admit  that  it  is  not  a 
cure-all  for  existent  evils,  but  that  it  will  remedy  such  evils 
to  a  greater  extent  than  any  other  measure. 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  29 

In  conclusion,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  these  admissions 
and  exclusions  should  be  made  plain  rather  than  elaborate. 
They  should  be  stated  in  the  introduction  of  the  argument 
with  such  brevity  and  clearness  that  the  audience  will  realize 
that  it  is  being  led  directly  to  the  vital  issues. 

5.  Contrasting  the  affirmative  arguments  with  those  of  the  nega- 
tive. 

Thus  far  we  have  been  concerned  with  finding  out  the  vital 
point  at  issue.  It  is  here  that  the  term  question  is  most  aptly 
applied  to  the  proposition  for  debate,  because  when  this 
vital  point  is  revealed  it  is  always  found  to  appear  in  the  form 
of  a  question.  To  be  more  specific,  we  found  that  in  analyz- 
ing the  proposition,  "Resolved,  that  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment should  control  all  life  insurance  companies  operating 
within  the  United  States,"  the  vital  point  at  issue  as  revealed 
by  a  study  of  the  origin  of  the  question  was  "Will  the  control 
of  insurance  companies  by  the  Federal  Government  be  more 
efi&cient  than  that  exercised  by  the  State  Governments?" 
This  treatment  reveals  the  main  point  at  issue  in  the  form 
of  a  question.  It  shows  that  the  issue  is  between  State  control 
on  one  side  as  compared  with  Federal  control  on  the  other. 
The  afl&rmative  must  advocate  Federal  control  and  the  nega- 
tive must  defend  State  control.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on 
the  affirmative,  for  it  must  show  that  a  change  should  be 
made  in  existing  conditions.  The  risk  of  non-persuasion  is 
upon  the  affirmative,  because,  if  the  position  advocated  can- 
not be  maintained,  existing  conditions  will  continue. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  the  burden  of  proof  remains 
with  the  affirmative  throughout  the  debate.  It  is  frequently 
said  that  the  burden  of  proof  "shifts,"  that  is,  that  when 
the  affirmative  has  produced  enough  evidence  to  make  out  a 
prima  facie  case,  and  has  shown  reason  why  the  plan  ought 
to  be  adopted,  then  the  burden  of  proof  shifts  to  the  negative 


30  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

and  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the  negative  to  show  why  the  plan 
should  not  be  adopted.  This  is  not  the  correct  view  of  the 
situation,  for  the  affirmative  is  bound  to  prove  the  proposi- 
tion in  the  face  of  all  opposition.  Therefore  the  burden  of 
proof  never  "shifts;"  it  is  the  duty  of  producing  evidence 
which  "shifts."  When  the  affirmative  shows  reason  why  the 
proposition  should  be  maintained,  it  puts  upon  the  negative 
the  duty  of  producing  evidence  to  show  that  the  affirmative 
reasoning  is  unsound  or  that  there  are  more  weighty  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  negative.  Thus  it  is  that  the  duty  of 
producing  evidence  shifts  from  one  side  to  the  other,  but  the 
burden  of  proof  remains  on  the  same  party  throughout  the 
discussion. 

The  question  upon  which  the  debate  hinges  must  be  an- 
swered in  one  way  by  one  side  and  in  just  the  opposite  way 
by  the  opponents  of  that  side.  In  the  question  above  referred 
to,  "Will  the  control  of  insurance  companies  by  the  Federal 
Government  be  more  efficient  than  that  exercised  by  the 
State  Governments?",  the  affirmative  must  answer  "Yes" 
and  the  negative  must  answer  "No." 

At  this  point  the  next  task  of  the  analyst  begins.  He  must 
determine  the  main  reasons  why  the  affirmative  should 
answer  "Yes"  and  the  negative  should  answer  "No."  These 
main  reasons  when  discovered  and  contrasted,  those  on  the 
affirmative  with  those  on  the  negative,  will  reveal  the  main 
issues  of  the  proposition.  When  these  are  found  the  process 
of  analysis  is  completed. 

In  undertaking  the  task  of  contrasting  the  affirmative  con- 
tentions with  those  of  the  negative,  the  student  must  assume 
an  absolutely  unbiased  attitude  toward  the  proposition.  The 
importance  of  this  impartial  viewpoint  cannot  be  too  strongly 
emphasized.  To  be  able  to  view  any  subject  with  a  mind  free 
from  prejudice  is  a  most  valuable  asset. 

With  this  proper  mental  attitude  toward  the  proposition 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  31 

the  analyst  must  take  up  both  sides  of  the  question  and  find 
the  main  arguments  in  support  of  each.  He  should  not  be 
deluded  into  thinking  that  it  is  only  necessary  to  study  one 
side  of  the  question.  A  lawyer  in  preparing  his  case  always 
takes  into  consideration  the  position  of  his  opponent.  In 
fact,  so  important  is  this  task  that  many  lawyers  develop 
their  antagonist's  case  before  beginning  work  on  their  own, 
and  it  frequently  happens  that  more  time  is  devoted  to  the 
arguments  of  the  opposition  than  to  the  case  upon  which  the 
lawyer  is  engaged.  This  careful  study  of  an  opponent's 
arguments  must  always  be  included  in  the  work  of  the  de- 
bater, not  only  in  the  analysis  of  the  question  but  throughout 
the  entire  argumentative  process. 

The  way  in  which  this  part  of  the  analytical  process  should 
be  carried  out  is  best  made  plain  by  a  concrete  example. 
We  will  take  the  proposition  "Resolved,  that  immigration 
into  the  United  States  should  be  further  restricted  by  law." 
The  origin  of  the  question  is  found  in  the  alarm  shown  by 
some  people  over  the  large  nmnber  of  imdesirable  foreigners 
coming  to  our  shores.  The  question  is  "Should  any  of  the 
immigrants  now  coming  to  our  shores  be  prohibited  from 
coming?"  The  affirmative  say  "Yes,"  and  the  negative, 
"No."  Now  to  take  the  impartial  viewpoint,  why  should 
there  be  any  further  restriction  of  immigration;  why  should 
the  afl&rmative  say  "Yes"  and  the  negative  "No"?  One  of 
the  chief  afl&rmative  arguments  is  that  some  of  these  immi- 
grants are  having  a  bad  effect  upon  our  country.  Some  of 
them  are  anarchists;  some  are  members  of  criminal  societies 
such  as  the  Black  Hand;  some  group  by  themselves  in  certain 
portions  of  large  cities  and  form  what  are  known  as  "Little 
Germanys  ",  "Little  Spains  ",  "Little  Italys  ",  etc.;  some 
have  contagious  diseases;  some  have  a  very  low  standard  of 
living  and  thus  tend  to  drag  down  the  standard  of  living  of 
the  American  workman;  some  are  illiterate  and  do  not  make 


32  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

good  citizens;  some  are  easily  made  the  dupes  of  city  bosses 
and  ward  "heelers"  and  thus  exert  a  harmful  influence  in 
our  political  affairs.  These  and  various  other  reasons  may 
be  brought  to  support  the  affirmative  argument  that  immi- 
gration is  having  a  bad  effect  upon  our  country. 

In  considering  the  matter  carefully  we  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  these  are  the  chief  reasons  why  immigration 
should  be  further  restricted.  Now,  the  unskilled  debater 
would  probably  be  content  with  framing  these  reasons  into 
an  argument  and  would  proceed  with  a  feeling  that  his  posi- 
tion v/as  impregnable.  The  skilled  debater,  however,  does 
not  feel  content  until  he  has  viewed  the  whole  subject  im- 
partially. Why  do  we  not  have  more  stringent  immigration 
laws?  It  must  be  that  the  present  laws  are  thought  to  be 
satisfactory.  Why  are  they  satisfactory?  It  must  be  because 
they  now  exclude  the  worst  class  of  immigrants.  Upon 
investigation  we  find  this  to  be  true.  Let  us  look  at  the 
problem  from  a  slightly  different  point  of  view.  Why  do  we 
allow  all  of  these  immigrants  to  come  in?  They  must  be 
necessary  to  our  welfare.  They  are  necessary  to  develop  the 
natural  resources  of  our  country;  they  add  to  the  national 
power  of  production,  they  possess  a  money  value  as  laborers; 
they  ultimately  become  American  citizens,  and  their  children, 
educated  in  our  pubHc  schools,  become  the  most  ardent  of 
young  Americans. 

The  above  reflections  from  the  standpoint  of  the  negative 
lead  us  to  ask  a  few  questions  which  must  be  answered  before 
we  can  answer  the  main  question  upon  which  the  proposition 
hinges^  namely:  "Should  any  of  the  immigrants  now  coming 
into  the  United  States  be  prohibited  from  coming?"  These 
questions  are,  so  far  as  we  have  been  able  to  determine:  "Are 
the  present  immigration  laws  satisfactory?",  "Do  we  need 
all  the  immigrants  now  coming  to  us?",  "Do  the  immigrants 
now  coming  to  us  have  a  bad  effect  upon  our  country? ' '    These 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION 


33 


questions  if  answered  "Yes"  will  establish  the  affirmative, 
and  likewise  if  answered  "No"  will  establish  the  negative. 
We  may  therefore  conclude  that  these  three  questions  con- 
tain the  main  issues  of  the  proposition.  The  issues  may  be 
stated  in  different  forms,  but,  if  resolved  to  their  essential 
elements,  they  will  ultimately  be  found  in  these  three  ques- 
tions. 

The  next  step  in  contrasting  the  arguments  is  to  write 
them  down  in  such  form  that  corresponding  arguments  can 
be  set  over  against  each  other.  For  convenience  we  adopt 
the  following  form: 


Proposition: — Immigration  should  be  further  restricted  by  law. 
Affirmative  argument  Negative  argument 


Immigration  should  be  fur- 
ther restricted,  because 

I.  It  is  a  detriment  to  the 
country,  for 

1.  We  now  admit  extreme 

socialists  and  anarch- 
ists. 

2.  They  form  undesirable 

groups  of  foreigners 
in  the  congested  parts 
of  cities. 

3.  They  lower  the  standard 

of  living  of  the  Amer- 
ican workman. 

4.  Many  of  the  immigrants 

now  admitted  do  not 
make  good  citizens. 

II.  The  present  laws  are  not 
satisfactory,  for 

I.  Black  Hand  societies 
show  that  undesirable 
persons  are  admitted. 


Immigration  should  not  be 
further  restricted,  because 

I.  It  is  a  benefit  to  the  coun- 
try, for 

1.  The  worst  elements  are 

now  excluded. 

2.  They  are  soon  assimi- 

lated. 


3.  They  furnish  examples 

of  thrift  to  American 
workmen. 

4.  They  ultimately  become 

good  citizens. 

II.  The  present  laws  are  sat- 
isfactory, for 

I.  No  law  would  exclude 
all  undesirable  immi- 
grants. 


34  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

Affirmative  argument  Negative  argument 

2.  Diseased     persons     are  2.  All  persons  having  con- 

admitted,  tagious    diseases    are 

excluded. 

3.  Steamship  lines  help  to  3.  Custom   house   officials 

evade  the  immigrant  are  diligent  in  enforc- 

laws,  ing  the  laws. 

4.  Paupers  are  admitted.  4.  Paupers    are    not    ad- 

mitted. 

III.  We  do  not  need  all  the  III.  We  need  all  the  immi- 
immigrants  now  coming  to  us,  grants  now  coming  to  us,  for 
for  I.  We  need  them  to  de- 
I.  The  great  necessity  for  velop  our  natural  re- 
laborers    to    develop  sources, 
our  natural  resources 
has  passed. 

By  contrasting  the  arguments  thus  tabulated  we  derive  the 
following  main  issues. 

I.  Is  immigration  under  existing  conditions  a  detriment  or  a 

benefit  to  the  country? 

(The  answer  depends  upon  the  answers  to  these  subordinate 

questions.) 

1.  Is  the  undesirable  element  excluded? 

2.  Have  the  immigrants  assimilated  readily? 

3.  Do  they  exert  a  detrimental  influence  upon  the  stand- 

ard of  living  of  the  American  workman? 

4.  Do  they  make  good  citizens? 

II.  Are  the  present  laws  satisfactory? 

1.  Are  they  the  most  effective  in  excluding  undesirable 

immigrants  that  it  is  possible  to  enact? 

2.  Do  they  exclude  diseased  persons? 

3.  Do  the  present  laws  exclude  paupers? 

4.  Are  the  present  laws  enforced? 

III.  Do  we  need  all  the  immigrants  now  coming  to  us? 

I.  Do  we  still  need  all  the  immigrants  we  can  get  to  develop 
our  natural  resources? 

This  arrangement  of  the  affirmative  and  negative  argu- 
ments places  the  whole  matter,  so  far  as  it  has  been  worked 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  35 

out,  before  the  student  in  tangible  form.  It  also  affords  a 
basis  for  the  formal  statement  of  the  main  issues.  The  plan 
of  analysis  thus  set  forth  should  now  be  examined  with  a 
critical  eye.  Here  arise  some  of  the  most  diflacult  problems  of 
argumentation.  In  the  first  place,  is  the  analysis  presented 
an  exhaustive  one?  Does  it  include  the  entire  field  of  argu- 
ment? It  includes  the  proposed  immigration  laws  and  their 
probable  effects.  It  includes  the  present  laws  and  their 
effects.  From  these  two  facts  it  is  evident  that  the  analysis 
covers  the  entire  field  of  the  proposed  change  in  the  immigra- 
tion laws. 

Before  passing  final  judgment  upon  the  thoroughness  of 
the  analysis,  there  are  at  least  two  other  plans  which  may  be 
applied  to  the  question  to  see  whether  either  of  them  will 
afford  a  better  method  of  treatment  than  the  foregoing.  The 
first  of  these  plans  includes  the  division  of  the  question  into 
three  parts;  viz.  (i)  political,  (2)  social,  and  (3)  economic. 
An  examination  of  the  question  just  discussed  wall  show  that 
all  the  material  suggested  in  the  formal  analysis  could  be 
grouped  under  one  or  the  other  of  these  heads.  For  example, 
the  anarchists,  Black  Hand  societies,  etc.  would  come  under 
"political;"  the  question  of  assimilation  would  come  under 
"social;"  while  the  effect  upon  the  American  workman  and 
the  question  of  the  development  of  our  natural  resources 
would  come  under  "economic." 

This  division  may  be  applied  to  many  questions,  but  it  is 
well  suited  to  only  a  limited  number.  In  fact,  some  eminent 
authorities  are  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  almost  never  to  be 
recommended.  It  is  not  as  well  adapted  to  the  immigration 
question  as  the  division  already  made,  for  the  reason  that 
it  would  be  necessary  to  include  some  of  the  subject-matter 
under  two  separate  heads.  For  example,  the  Little  Spains, 
Little  Italys,  etc.,  mentioned  above,  might  require  treatment 
under  the  social  and  political  divisions  and  even  under  the 


36  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

heading  of  economics.  This  is  objectionable,  because  it  re- 
quires a  dupUcation  of  the  statement  of  facts  under  each 
head,  and  also  because  it  is  not  conducive  to  the  clean,  clear- 
cut  thinking  which  is  the  result  of  a  sharp  division  of  the 
subject  into  parts  which  do  not  overlap. 

The  second  plan  of  analysis,  which  forms  a  good  working 
basis  for  many  propositions,  is  that  of  dividing  the  subject 
into  three  parts,  namely,  (i)  Necessity,  (2)  Practicability, 
and  (3)  Justice.  This  division  of  the  subject  is  often  appli- 
cable to  propositions  which  advocate  the  adoption  of  some  new 
plan  of  action,  as,  "Resolved,  that  the  Federal  Government 
should  levy  a  progressive  inheritance  tax,"  or  "Resolved, 
that  cities  of  the  United  States,  having  a  population  of  over 
5,000,  should  adopt  the  commission  form  of  government." 

These  and  similar  questions  may  be  analyzed  by  one  of  the 
two  plans  stated  above,  but  it  is  well  to  beware  adopting 
one  or  the  other  of  these  methods  merely  because  it  affords 
an  easy  way  out  of  the  task  of  analyzing  the  proposition. 
That  analysis  of  a  question  should  be  adopted  which  reveals 
the  main  issues  of  the  proposition  in  the  clearest  and  most 
direct  manner. 

SUMMARY   OF  ESSENTIAL   STEPS  IN  ANALYSIS 

1.  A  broad  view  of  the  subject. 

2.  The  origin  and  history  of  the  question. 

3.  Definition  of  terms. 

4.  Narrowing  the  question. 

(i)  Excluding  irrelevant  matter. 

(2)  Admitting  matters  not  vital  to  the  argument. 

5.  Contrasting  the  affirmative  arguments  with  those  of  the 

negative. 

III.  The  main  issues. 

The  process  of  analysis  with  which  we  are  dealing  has  re- 
vealed the  main  issues  of  the  proposition.  It  now  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  debater  to  arrange  the  issues  in  logical  and 


ANALYZING  THE  PROPOSITION  37 

climactic  order.  The  most  forcible  array  of  argument  should 
come  at  the  end.  For  example,  in  the  question  just  analyzed 
the  logical  as  well  as  the  climactic  order  of  arrangement  for 
the  main  issues  on  the  afi&rmative  would  be  as  follows: 

I.  The  present  laws  are  not  satisfactory. 

II.  We  do  not  need  all  the  immigrants  now  coming  to  us. 

III.  Immigration  (under  the  present  system)  is  a  detri- 
ment to  the  country. 

This  analysis  should  be  the  result  of  a  thorough  study  of 
both  sides  of  the  whole  proposition.  If  the  task  has  been 
well  done  no  change  in  the  essential  elements  of  the  analysis 
will  become  necessary.  However,  as  the  investigation  of  the 
subject  progresses,  and  the  work  of  collecting  evidence  leads 
the  student  into  a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
proposition,  it  may  be  found  advisable  to  make  some  altera- 
tions in  the  analysis  first  written  out.  Such  alterations 
should  be  made  only  after  careful  deliberation,  for  it  often 
happens  that,  in  investigating  a  subject  at  close  range,  one 
loses  the  broad  general  view  which  is  necessary  to  an  intelli- 
gent analysis.  It  may  even  become  necessary  for  a  be- 
ginner to  change  his  entire  plan  after  he  has  made  a  more 
thorough  investigation  of  the  subject.  In  such  an  event  the 
work  originally  spent  in  analysis  should  not  be  regarded  as 
lost,  because  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  student 
have  some  definite  plan  as  a  basis  for  his  investigation.  If 
it  does  no  more  than  show  him  that  he  is  wrong,  the  time 
spent  on  it  cannot  be  said  to  be  wasted.  In  any  event, 
the  student  should  keep  his  mind  open  for  the  reception 
of  ideas  which  will  make  his  analysis  clearer,  briefer,  and 
more  forcible. 

Exercises  in  Analysis 

I.  Write  out  a  complete  analysis  of  one  of  the  local  questions 
phrased  for  Exercise  i.  Chapter  II. 


38  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

«.  Show  the  importance  of  the  origin  and  history  of  the  question 
ir  the  analysis  of  each  of  the  following  propositions: 

(i)  Three-fourths  of  a  jury  should  be  competent  to  render  a 
verdict  in  all  criminal  cases. 

(2)  Public  Ubraries  should  be  open  on  Sundays. 

(3)  The  growth  of  large  fortunes  should  be  checked  by  a 

graduated  income  tax. 

(4)  United  States  senators  should  be  elected  by  direct  vote 

of  the  people. 

(5)  National  party  hues  should  be  discarded  In  mimicipal 

elections. 

(6)  The  membership  of  the  national  House  of  Representa- 

tives should  be  considerably  reduced. 

3.  Define  the  terms  which  need  defining  in  the  above  proposi- 
tions. From  what  source  or  sources  should  these  definitions  be 
taken? 

4.  Write  out  a  complete  analysis  of  one  of  the  questions  given 
under  Exercise  2. 


CHAPTER  IV 

EVIDENCE 

The  analysis  of  the  question  has  revealed  the  main  issues. 
The  next  step  in  the  argumentative  process  is  to  prove  the 
truth  of  these  main  issues  by  producing  evidence.  Evidence 
consists  of  the  material  by  which  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a 
proposition  is  proved.  It  is  an  error  to  use  the  terms  "  proof  " 
and  "evidence"  as  synonymous.  Proof  is  the  result  or  effect 
of  evidence;  evidence  is  the  material  of  proof.  A  thing  is  not 
proved  until  sufficient  evidence  has  been  produced  to  estab- 
lish it.  The  most  accurate  logicians  make  this  distinction 
and  it  is  well  to  observe  it  in  the  study  of  argumentation.  A 
given  fact  is  not  proof  of  the  truth  of  a  statement  unless  it 
alone  is  sufficient  to  establish  such  truth;  otherwise  it  is 
merely  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the  statement  is  true. 
This  distinction  should  be  kept  clearly  in  mind,  and  no  fact 
should  be  offered  as  complete  proof  when  it  is  only  evidence 
tending  to  support  a  given  proposition. 

The  student  is  now  confronted  with  the  necessity  of  estab- 
lishing his  proposition  by  presenting  evidence  in  support  of 
the  main  issues.  The  first  problem  which  naturally  comes 
to  him  is:  "Where  shall  I  go  to  find  this  evidence?"  In 
answering  this  question  the  student  should  consult  carefully, 
one  by  one,  each  of  the  following: 

I.  Sources  of  evidence : 

I.  Personal  knowledge. 

Before  turning  to  outside  sources  the  student  should  care- 
fully examine  the  contents  of  his  own  mind  to  determine 

39 


40  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

just  how  much  he  really  knows  about  the  subject.  He  should, 
however,  distinguish  between  exact  knowledge  and  mere 
conjecture.  His  exact  knowledge,  gained  from  whatever 
source,  is  perfectly  valid  from  the  standpoint  of  evidence  pro- 
viding it  can  be  proved.  The  line  between  exact  knowledge 
and  mere  conjecture  is  determined  by  the  ability  of  the 
student  to  lay  his  hands  upon  sufficient  evidence  to  prove 
the  thing  that  he  believes  to  be  true. 

2.  Personal  interviews. 

If  the  question  is  a  local  one  personal  interviews  are  both 
practicable  and  valuable.  Interviews  with  persons  who  are 
connected  in  some  way  with  the  subject  of  dispute,  or  who 
are  in  a  position  to  have  exact  knowledge  of  the  subject- 
matter,  or  who  are  taking  an  active  part  in  the  local  discus- 
sion of  the  subject,  are  a  most  important  source  of  evidence. 
Interviews  with  such  persons  not  only  give  the  student  facts, 
reasons,  and  opinions,  but  they  usually  reveal  other  sources 
to  which  he  can  go  directly.  For  example,  in  a  local  debate 
on  the  question  of  whether  the  city,  or  the  street  railway  com- 
pany should  bear  the  expenses  of  building  a  bridge  which 
they  used  in  common,  the  debaters  obtained  personal  inter- 
views with  all  the  city  officials  having  anything  to  do  with 
the  bridge,  and  with  the  officials  of  the  street  railway  com- 
pany. Prominent  citizens  and  business  men  of  the  city  were 
also  interviewed.  These  interviews  were  productive  of  a 
large  amount  of  material  in  the  form  of  facts,  reasons,  illus- 
trations, opinions,  and  references  to  other  sources  of  material. 
In  the  discussion  of  any  local  question  the  debater  will  usually 
find  the  parties  concerned  willing,  and  even  eager  to  give 
him  "ammunition"  for  the  debate. 

In  collecting  evidence  on  questions  which  deal  with  the 
problems  of  commerce,  taxation,  economics,  politics,  and 
education,  the  student  will  usually  find  some  men  whose 


EVIDENCE  41 

opinions  are  entitled  to  careful  consideration  and  with  whom 
interviews  may  be  arranged.  Whether  these  men  are  quoted 
as  authority  will,  of  course,  depend  upon  their  known  reputa- 
tion in  the  branch  of  knowledge  upon  which  their  opinion  is 
asked.  Even  if  the  debater  does  not  think  it  best  to  quote 
the  person  interviewed,  he  may  gain  from  him  much  valuable 
help.  Arguments  reasoned  out  from  the  facts  of  a  case  de- 
pend for  their  worth  upon  the  validity  of  the  reasoning 
process  and  not  upon  their  source.  Therefore  the  argu- 
ments of  any  well-informed,  intelligent  person,  if  based  upon 
facts  and  logically  sound,  can  be  utilized.  Moreover,  such 
persons  are  often  able  to  give  information  regarding  sources 
of  evidence  which  may  have  escaped  notice.  The  college 
student  would  do  well  to  consult  the  members  of  the  faculty 
whose  work  would  make  them  familiar  with  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  argument.  The  student  should  by  no  means 
pass  lightly  over  this  source  of  material.  In  fact,  such  sources 
should  be  exhausted  before  a  more  extended  search  for  evi- 
dence is  entered  upon.  Furthermore,  a  discussion  of  the 
subject  with  these  well-informed  people  will  beget  new  ideas 
and  give  a  breadth  of  view  regarding  the  subject  which  will 
be  helpful  in  subsequent  investigation. 

J.  Personal  letters. 

After  the  student  has  gained  some  knowledge  regarding 
the  most  eminent  authorities  on  the  subject  under  discussion, 
he  may  feel  at  liberty  to  address  some  of  them  with  a  personal 
letter.  This  letter  should  be  brief  and  to  the  point,  stating 
just  what  is  wanted.  If  questions  are  asked  they  should  be 
brief  and  plain.  The  use  to  which  the  reply  is  to  be  put 
should  be  stated. 

If  the  question  is  one  with  which  national,  state,  or  munic- 
ipal officials  are  concerned  personal  letters  may  be  written 
to  them.    If  this  is  carefully  done  in  accordance  with  the 


42  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

foregoing  suggestions,  a  prompt  reply  is  almost  always  as- 
sured. An  opinion  expressed  in  a  personal  letter  from  a  na- 
tional or  state  of&cial,  or  any  information  given  by  him,  is 
usually  looked  upon  with  considerable  respect. 

Still  another  class  of  men  to  whom  personal  letters  may  be 
written  with  profit  consists  of  the  well  known  ofi&cials  of 
large  sectional  and  national  associations  such  as  the  American 
Bar  Association,  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  the 
National  Manufacturers  Association.  The  ofificials  of  these 
and  other  similar  associations  are  usually  well  pleased  to  be 
consulted  upon  the  questions  in  which  their  opinions  are  re- 
garded with  respect.  Although  the  debater  should  not  carry 
on  a  correspondence  campaign  for  material,  yet  he  should 
not  hesitate  to  write  for  facts  and  opinions  which  are  of 
vital  importance. 

4.  Current  literature. 

Current  literature  offers  the  most  prolific  field  of  informa- 
tion on  subjects  of  general  interest.  This  source  of  material 
is  always  available  to  the  debater.  His  first  efforts  should 
be  directed  to  finding  out  what  this  field  contains  that  bears 
directly  on  the  subject.  With  this  object  in  view  he  should 
consult  The  Reader's  Guide,  Poole's  Index  and  the  Annual 
Library  Index.  Here  he  will  find  all  the  important  magazine 
articles  that  have  been  written  on  any  subject.  The  title  of 
the  article,  the  name  of  the  writer,  the  magazine  in  which  it 
is  found,  together  with  the  date,  volume,  and  page,  are  given 
exactly.  This  opens  a  great  storehouse  of  information.  In 
consulting  these  guides  to  periodic  literature  the  investigator 
should  exercise  his  ingenuity  as  well  as  his  imagination  in 
determining  under  what  topics  he  will  find  his  material  hsted. 
In  investigating  the  proposition  "Resolved,  that  Congress 
should  immediately  provide  for  an  increase  in  the  navy," 
the  student  must  not  be  content  with  merely  looking  up  the 


EVIDENCE  43 

articles  found  listed  in  the  guide  under  the  topic  "Navy." 
He  should  also  look  under  "Battleships",  "Warships", 
"Dreadnoughts",  "International  Peace",  "Foreign  Af- 
fairs ",  etc.  At  the  end  of  these  lists  cross-references  to 
related  subjects  will  be  found  and  these  should  also  be  con- 
sulted. 

The  student  should  go  over  the  list  of  articles  carefully  and 
make  out  a  bibliography  ^  of  magazine  references.  Titles 
of  all  articles  which  appear  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  subject 
should  be  taken  down  in  full.  This  process  of  going  over  the 
lists  in  search  of  pertinent  articles  should  be  repeated  from 
time  to  time  throughout  the  investigation,  because  as  the 
student's  knowledge  of  the  subject  broadens  he  will  get  more 
clearly  in  mind  the  exact  nature  of  the  information  which  he 
requires.  The  bibliography  will  save  much  time  in  getting 
at  the  most  valuable  material  in  current  literature. 

The  student  can  now  select  from  the  great  number  of 
articles  before  him  those  which  appear  to  be  most  valuable. 
The  most  valuable  articles  are  those  which  (a)  bear  directly 
upon  some  main  issue  of  the  question  and  (b)  are  written  by 
recognized  authorities  on  the  subject.  If  the  writer  of  any 
particular  article  is  imknown  to  the  student  he  should  con- 
sult "pr/w'5  Who  in  America^  Here  are  arranged  in  alpha- 
betical order  the  names  of  all  the  men  in  America  who  have 
attained  distinction  in  any  line  of  endeavor.  In  connection 
with  each  name  there  is  given  a  brief  biography  which  sets 
forth  the  positions  that  individual  has  held,  honors  which 
have  been  bestowed  upon  him,  important  work  in  which  he 
has  been  engaged,  and  any  other  facts  which  might  tend  to 
give  weight  to  his  utterances.  Foreign  authorities  should  be 
investigated  by  consulting  the  encyclopedias,  the  Who's 

^  A  bibliography  (as  the  term  is  here  used)  is  a  list  of  books  and 
periodicals  on  any  one  subject  with  exact  references  to  volumes, 
page,  etc. 


44  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

Who  volume  (if  available)  of  the  particular  country  to 
which  the  writer  belongs,  or  by  referring  to  other  prominent 
writers.  Throughout  the  entire  investigation  "Who^s  Who 
in  America"  should  be  consulted  as  an  authority  on  the 
standing  of  men  to  whose  work  the  debater  wishes  to 
refer.  This  method  of  using  "Who's  Who"  and  the  bib- 
liography brings  the  student  directly  to  the  best  sources  of 
material  which  can  be  found  in  current  literature. 

As  indicated  above,  the  real  criterion  of  the  value  of  an 
article  in  a  magazine  is  the  standing  of  the  man  who  wrote 
it.  However,  certain  periodicals  have  come  to  be  looked 
upon  with  such  respect  by  students  and  scholars  that  all 
articles  appearing  in  them  are  given  considerable  weight. 
This  reputation  which  is  sustained  by  certain  publications 
results  from  the  care  with  which  the  editors  have  selected 
the  material  put  into  the  magazine.  They  have  been  careful 
to  allow  only  capable  writers  to  contribute  to  their  periodicals 
in  the  past,  and,  we  may  assume  (although  this  is  sometimes 
a  violent  assumption)  that  this  careful  supervision  will  con- 
tinue in  the  future.  Moreover,  the  editorials  of  these 
magazines  are  looked  upon  as  good  authority.  For  the  con- 
venience of  the  student  the  following  list  of  magazines  is 
suggested  as  reliable  sources  of  evidence. 

(i)  The  North  American  Review. 

(2)  The  Literary  Digest. 

(3)  The  Independent. 

(4)  World's  Work. 

(5)  Review  of  Reviews. 

(6)  The  Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and 

Social  Science. 

(7)  Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and 

Public  Law. 

The  last  two  pubUcations  are  somewhat  different  from  the 


EVIDENCE  45 

others  mentioned  in  the  list,  but  they  are  included  because 
they  are  important  and  are  usually  available  in  libraries 
having  the  other  publications  enumerated.  This  list  is  not 
intended  as  a  complete  and  exhaustive  list  but  merely  as  a 
suggestion  to  the  student  in  search  of  material.  It  is  not 
intended  to  depreciate  the  value  of  any  publication  not  in- 
cluded in  the  hst.  However,  the  student  should  beware  of 
relying  upon  material  found  in  any  magazine  merely  because 
the  pubhcation  poses  as  a  magazine  instead  of  as  a  newspaper 
or  story  book.  Some  of  the  popular  magazines  which  appear 
to  be  manufactured  for  the  sole  purpose  of  being  sold,  make 
an  attempt  at  sensationalism  rather  than  truth.  Such 
periodicals  should  never  be  relied  upon  as  authority. 

Another  source  of  evidence  found  in  current  literature  is 
the  technical  and  professional  magazine.  Almost  every  trade 
and  profession  has  one  or  more  reUable  magazines.  In  the 
fields  of  medicine,  law,  banking,  contracting,  engineering, 
etc.,  are  many  periodicals.  Each  offers  articles  by  reliable 
writers  on  almost  all  phases  of  the  particular  branch  of  learn- 
ing to  which  the  magazine  is  devoted.  Prominent  among  the 
technical  magazines  that  may  be  quoted  as  authority  is  the 
Engineering  News.  This  periodical  offers  much  valuable  ma- 
terial on  all  the  important  engineering  problems  of  the  day. 

Magazine  articles,  outside  of  the  technical  and  professional 
magazine,  are  usually  written  for  the  layman;  hence  the  sub- 
jects are  usually  presented  in  a  manner  easy  to  understand. 
This  is  especially  important  to  the  student  at  the  beginning 
of  his  investigation  when  his  knowledge  of  the  subject  is 
limited.  SimpHcity  of  treatment  and  accuracy  of  statement 
combined  with  an  almost  boundless  range  of  subject-matter 
make  current  literature  a  most  valuable  source  of  evidence. 

5.  Standard  literature. 
Under  this  head  are  included  all  the  reUable  encyclopedias, 


46  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

reference  works,  text-books,  and  books  on  special  subjects 
written  by  experts  and  authorities.  For  brief,  accurate,  and 
authoritative  articles  of  a  general  character,  the  encyclopedias 
are  most  valuable.  The  best  works  of  this  class  are  Bri- 
tannica,  Chamber s\  Nelson's,  Johnson's,  Appleton's,  Apple- 
ton's  Annual  Cyclopedia,  and  Bliss'  Encyclopedia  of  Social 
Reform.  Text-books  and  special  works  by  authorities  on  all 
subjects  are  very  numerous.  For  this  source  of  material  it 
is  best  to  consult  the  catalogue  of  a  library.  Here  will  be 
found  under  the  author's  name  all  of  his  works  that  are  in 
the  library.  After  the  student  has  found  out  by  personal 
interviews,  reading  current  literature,  etc.,  who  are  the  most 
reliable  writers  on  the  subject  in  hand,  he  should  always 
consult  this  index  of  authors  to  determine  whether  any  of 
their  books  are  available.  The  catalogue  of  the  library  usu- 
ally classifies  the  books  also  according  to  subject-matter. 
Therefore  by  consulting  this  catalogue  all  the  books  on  this 
particular  subject  contained  in  the  library  may  be  made  ac- 
cessible. Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  index  to  periodic 
literature,  the  investigator  must  use  his  ingenuity  in  determin- 
ing under  what  heads  he  may  find  his  most  valuable  material. 

6,  Special  documents. 

(i)  Reports  and  pamphlets  issued  by  organizations. 

In  order  to  gain  access  to  this  sort  of  material  it  is  usually 
necessary  to  write  to  the  headquarters  of  the  organizations. 
In  most  cases  their  reports  and  other  printed  matter  may  be 
had  for  the  asking,  although  in  some  cases  a  charge  is  made. 
The  student,  however,  can  usually  obtain  sufficient  material 
of  this  character  without  any  cost  to  himself  other  than  the 
small  outlay  necessary  for  postage.  In  the  larger  schools 
and  colleges  it  is  now  becoming  customary  for  the  debating 
teams  to  have  letter  heads  printed.  These  state  the  name  of 
the  institution  or  of  the  debating  league  to  which  the  insti- 


EVIDENCE  47 

tution  belongs,  the  names  of  the  members  of  the  team,  and 
the  question  for  debate.  While  this  procedure  is  unnecessary 
for  class  debates  or  written  arguments,  or  even  for  society  or 
college  debates,  it  is  at  least  desirable  in  the  preparation  for 
an  intercollegiate  debate  such  as  is  held  between  members  of 
large  debating  leagues.  By  this  use  of  letter  heads  in  writing 
to  the  ofificials  of  organizations,  as  well  as  to  private  indi- 
viduals, a  full  and  more  careful  response  is  almost  always 
secured.  However,  in  most  cases  a  request  for  reports  or 
other  material,  with  a  statement  of  the  use  to  which  they  are 
to  be  put,  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  bring  a  prompt  reply. 
Almost  all  the  important  trades  and  professions  have  na- 
tional organizations  which  are  ready  to  aid  in  the  distribution 
of  knowledge  in  their  several  spheres.  Among  organizations 
of  a  professional  character  may  be  mentioned  the  American 
Bar  Association,  the  American  Chemical  Society,  and  the 
National  Education  Association.  Among  industrial  organiza- 
tions, the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  and  the  National 
Manufacturers  Association  are  probably  the  most  important. 

Organizations  having  for  their  object  the  bringing  about  of 
certain  reforms  in  our  social  or  political  life  are  always  willing 
to  send  material  for  use  in  the  discussion  of  questions  in 
which  they  are  interested.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned 
the  International  Reform  Bureau,  the  Anti-Saloon  League, 
the  Lake  Mohonk  Conference  on  International  Arbitration, 
the  American  Peace  Society,  and  the  New  York  Reform 
Club.  It  is  well  worth  while  for  the  student  who  is  investigat- 
ing any  of  the  questions  in  which  these  associations  are  in- 
terested to  write  them  for  material. 

In  special  branches  of  learning  there  are  various  organiza- 
tions which  publish  both  reports  of  their  meetings  and  special 
reports  on  subjects  connected  with  their  work.  The  American 
Historical  Association,  and  the  American  Economic  Associa- 
tion belong  to  this  class.    Other  organizations  of  this  charac- 


48  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

ter  will  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  student  before  he 
has  advanced  far  in  the  study  of  any  proposition. 

(2)  Reports  and  documents  issued  by  the  government. 

Government  documents  and  reports,  especially  those  is- 
sued by  the  Federal  government,  are  among  the  most  valu- 
able sources  of  evidence.  The  authors  or  compilers  of  these 
reports  are  men  whose  ofl&cial  positions  enable  them  to  obtain 
accurate  information.  Furthermore,  these  men  have  usually 
passed  a  civil  service,  or  other  examination,  and  thus  demon- 
strated their  ability  to  perform  the  tasks  assigned;  or  on 
account  of  favorable  reputation  have  been  elected  or  ap- 
pointed to  fill  the  positions  for  which  they  are  well  quaUfied. 
Their  action  is  taken  purely  as  governmental  agents  and, 
from  the  nature  of  their  office  and  the  requirements  of  public 
opinion,  that  action  and  all  information  gathered  conform 
approximately  to  the  facts.  For  these  reasons  governmental 
reports  and  documents  are  looked  upon  as  the  highest  au- 
thority on  the  subjects  with  which  they  deal,  and  anyone 
who  argues  can  offer  no  better  evidence  than  a  basis  of  fact 
backed  up  by  definite  references  to  official  government  docu- 
ments. 

One  of  the  most  useful  documents  of  this  class  is  the  United 
States  Census  Report.  This  report  contains  not  only  the 
population  statistics  but  also  other  funds  of  information  even 
more  valuable  to  the  student.  In  it  there  are  vital  statistics, 
statistics  on  labor,  manufacturing,  commerce,  and  a  multi- 
tude of  other  subjects  which  the  student  dealing  with  any 
economic  or  commercial  proposition  cannot  overlook.  If 
accurate  information  is  required  regarding  any  phase  of  our 
national  growth  or  present  activity  the  census  report  should 
be  consulted  before  any  other  source  of  evidence. 

Another  most  important  source  of  evidence  is  the  Report 
of  the  United  States  Industrial  Commission.  This  report 
comprises  nineteen  volumes,  the  last  of  which  (Vol.  19)  con- 


EVIDENCE  49 

tains  valuable  material,  together  with  the  recommendations 
of  the  commission,  in  regard  to  almost  all  the  leading  indus- 
trial and  economic  questions  which  are  now  being  discussed. 
The  report  as  a  whole  covers  the  entire  industrial  field  in 
this  country  and  offers  a  reliable  and  exhaustive  fund  of 
information. 

In  the  Congressional  Record  can  be  found  discussions,  both 
affirmative  and  negative,  of  all  the  public  questions  which 
have  come  before  either  branch  of  Congress.  This  source  of 
material  is  very  suggestive  but  it  is  not  always  trustworthy. 
It  should  not  be  quoted  in  itself  as  an  authority.  The  mere 
fact  that  one  may  refer  to  a  certain  volume  and  page  of  the 
Congressional  Record  on  which  a  certain  statement  appears 
is  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  that  statement.  The  material 
which  it  contains  is  mainly  the  reports  of  speeches.  The 
record  is  official  and  authoritative  so  far  as  concerns  what 
was  said  in  those  speeches.  However,  the  value  of  the  thing 
said  depends  upon  the  man  who  said  it.  Therefore,  the  de- 
bater should  quote  Representative  Douglas,  or  Senator  Bur- 
ton as  saying  so-and-so  which  is  found  in  such  a  volume  and 
on  such  a  page  of  the  Congressional  Record.  With  this  cau- 
tion in  mind,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  man  who  is  quoted  and  not 
the  mere  fact  of  its  appearance  in  the  Congressional  Record 
that  gives  weight  to  a  statement,  the  student  should  utilize 
this  source  of  evidence.  The  index  of  these  records  is  de- 
cidedly awkward  for  a  beginner,  but  the  material  contained 
therein  is  so  important  that  some  little  time  may  well  be 
spent  in  making  the  acquaintance  of  the  indexing  system. 
The  Congressional  Record  is  indexed  under  three  heads, 
(i)  names,  (2)  subjects,  and  (3)  bills  by  their  official  numbers. 
A  great  mass  of  material  will  be  found  under  subjects,  but 
after  the  student  has  accustomed  himself  to  using  the  index 
he  can  readily  find  the  material  which  he  desires  to  read. 
The  Congressional  Documents  which  contain  reports  from 


50  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

the  executive  departments  and  the  legislative  committees  are 
divided  for  each  session  of  Congress  into  six  groups: 
(i)  Senate  Executive  Documents,  (2)  Senate  Miscellaneous, 
(3)  Senate  Reports  (of  committees)  (4)  House  Executive 
Documents,  (5)  House  Miscellaneous,  (6)  House  Reports  (of 
committees) .  A  Document  Index  for  each  session  of  Congress 
will  be  found  in  connection  with  these  volumes. 

Any  school  or  library,  or  in  fact  any  individual,  may  ob- 
tain valuable  lists  of  government  publications  by  writing 
to  the  Library  of  Congress  or  to  the  Superintendent  of  Docu- 
ments. From  time  to  time  the  Library  of  Congress  publishes 
special  books  and  articles  on  such  subjects  as  Taxation  of 
Inheritance,  Tarififs  of  Foreign  Nations,  Capital  and  Labor, 
and  many  other  questions  of  national  importance. 

In  addition  to  the  publications  of  the  national  government, 
reports  issued  by  the  various  states  and  municipalities  should 
be  investigated.  For  example,  in  discussing  a  question  of 
taxation  the  amount  of  tax  derived  by  each  state  from  a 
certain  source  may  become  important.  If  this  information 
cannot  be  found  already  compiled,  it  may  be  obtained  by 
writing  to  the  secretary,  treasurer,  or  auditor  of  each  state 
and  asking  for  the  report  in  which  such  information  is  pub- 
lished. If  it  be  a  source  of  taxation  used  only  in  a  part  of  the 
states,  the  student  should  compile  a  list  of  the  states  in  which 
it  is  used  and  write  to  the  officials  in  those  states  only. 

In  the  discussion  of  municipal  problems,  such  as  muni- 
cipal ownership  of  public  utilities,  the  commission  form  of 
city  government,  etc.,  it  is  well  to  write  to  the  cities  in  which 
these  plans  have  been  tried  and  get  such  reports  as  will  show 
the  results. 

A  careful  investigation  of  all  the  sources  here  set  forth 
will  yield  information  sufl&ciently  broad  and  varied  for  the 
argumentative  discussion  of  any  subject.  However,  the 
student  may  well  consult  other  text-books  on  Argumentation 


EVIDENCE  SI 

and  Debate  for  the  purpose  of  getting  suggestions  regarding 
the  sources  of  material  which  will  be  useful  to  him.  Books  of 
briefs  for  debates  and  reports  of  debates  are  published,  which 
give  helpful  suggestions  regarding  material  or  evidence  on 
many  of  the  most  important  questions.  As  advancement  is 
made  in  the  practical  work  of  investigating  subjects  for  argu- 
mentative treatment,  facility  in  utilizing  the  sources  of  evi- 
dence will  be  acquired.  At  first  the  time  spent  in  the  investi- 
gation of  some  sources,  especially  standard  literature  and 
government  documents,  may  not  appear  to  yield  the  practical 
results  which  time  well  expended  ought  to  yield.  Here  a 
word  of  caution  is  necessary,  for  time  spent  in  this  manner 
should  never  be  regarded  as  wasted.  It  is  not  wasted,  be- 
cause the  student  is  acquiring  the  power  to  investigate  sub- 
jects on  his  o\vn  responsibility,  and  the  ability  to  skim  rapidly 
over  large  masses  of  material  and  select  only  the  things  that 
are  really  useful.  It  is  only  after  long  periods  of  such  diligent 
work  that  the  student  can  feel  himself  master  of  the  resources 
of  great  libraries,  and  an  expert  in  the  use  of  the  sources  of 
evidence. 

SUMMARY   OF  THE   SOURCES  OF  EVIDENCE 

1.  Personal  knowledge. 

2.  Personal  interviews. 

3.  Personal  letters. 

4.  Current  literature. 

5.  Standard  literature. 

6.  Special  documents. 

(i)  Reports  and  pamphlets  issued  by  organizations. 
(2)  Reports  and  documents  issued  by  the  government. 

II.  Recording  evidence. 

After  an  acquaintance  with  the  sources  of  evidence  is  gained 
the  necessity  for  some  orderly  method  or  system  of  taking 
notes  becomes  apparent.  This  is  the  next  important  step  in 
argumentation.    The  investigator  should  not  rely  upon  his 


52  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

memory.  Notes  should  be  taken  on  every  source  of  evidence 
discussed  in  the  preceding  section.  An  idea  rarely  becomes 
our  own  until  it  has  been  expressed  in  our  own  words.  As 
ideas  on  the  subject  for  discussion  occur  to  the  debater's 
mind  they  should  be  recorded  in  order  that  they  may  be  at 
hand  when  required.  Opinions  expressed  and  information 
acquired  in  personal  interviews  should  be  recorded  either 
during  the  interview  or  immediately  after.  It  is  preferable 
to  devote  one's  attention  exclusively  to  an  interview,  and 
then  record  the  results  as  soon  as  possible  after  its  termina- 
tion. Even  the  ideas  expressed  in  personal  letters  and  ex- 
tracts from  them  should  be  written  down  by  the  student  in 
order  that  he  may  have  them  in  convenient  form  for  reference. 
The  futility  of  reading  without  taking  notes  is  apparent  at 
first  thought.  Notes  should  be  taken  at  the  time  the  reading 
is  done.  All  important  matters  of  fact  and  all  quotable 
matters  should  be  recorded  during  the  reading.  Even  if  a 
particular  fact  does  not  appear  to  bear  directly  on  the  phase 
of  the  subject  under  discussion,  it  should,  nevertheless,  be 
recorded.    It  may  later  prove  to  be  valuable  evidence. 

The  notes  taken  should  be  full  and  complete.  This  require- 
ment applies  to  the  substance  of  the  material  and  not  to  its 
form.  In  most  cases  the  reader  should  be  able  to  condense 
the  contents  of  a  page  into  a  few  words.  The  point  or  points 
which  the  writer  regarded  as  vital  should  be  grasped  by  the 
reader  and  put  down  in  a  brief  note.  Statistics  found  in 
different  places  should  be  assembled  and  reduced  to  tabular 
form.  The  student  must  not  only  read,  but  he  must  think 
as  well.  New  ideas,  new  combinations  of  circumstances, 
new  relations  made  evident  by  grouping  facts  should  all  be 
carefully  investigated  and  noted.  Reading  should  be  an 
intelligent  process,  not  mere  drudgery.  The  reader  should 
assimilate,  not  merely  store  up,  the  knowledge  gained  from 
books. 


EVIDENCE  53 

In  the  recording  of  evidence  the  following  rules  should  be 
strictly  observed: 

1.  Use  small  cards  or  sheets  of  paper  of  uniform  size. 

A  note-book  or  large  sheets  of  paper  should  never  be  used. 
To  do  so  is  to  invite  confusion.  With  several  points  on  one 
sheet  of  paper  or  in  a  note-book  and  recorded  in  the  order 
in  which  they  were  found  in  the  reading,  the  student  is  not 
left  free  to  group  the  ideas  or  points  to  form  his  argument; 
no  classification  is  possible,  and  the  notes  taken  become  mere 
masses  of  material.  The  best  form  in  which  to  record  ma- 
terial is  by  the  use  of  the  ordinary  filing  cards  which  may  be 
obtained  at  almost  any  book  store.  These  cards  should  be 
about  three  by  five  inches  in  size  and  of  fairly  heavy  stock. 
Ruled  cards  with  a  red  line  at  the  top  are  the  kind  most  fre- 
quently used.  If  these  cards  cannot  be  obtained,  small 
pieces  of  paper  of  this  same  convenient  size  should  be  used. 

2.  Place  only  one  fact  or  point  on  each  card. 

Never  put  more  than  one  fact  or  point  on  the  same  card. 
Even  though  the  facts  to  be  recorded  are  intimately  related 
in  their  present  position,  the  reader  should  use  a  separate 
card  for  each.  When  the  investigator  is  ready  to  use  these 
facts  the  relation  may  be  unimportant  or  may  be  entirely 
changed  by  the  manner  in  which  he  wishes  to  use  them. 
One  statement  may  be  used  to  support  one  argument,  while 
another  may  be  used  to  support  an  entirely  separate  argu- 
ment. Furthermore,  when  this  material  is  utilized  in  con- 
structing the  brief,  the  student  must  be  left  free  to  arrange 
his  material  in  the  most  logical  manner.  To  put  more  than 
one  point  on  a  card  greatly  hampers  this  work. 

3.  Write  on  only  one  side  of  the  card. 

The  handling  of  these  cards  becomes  a  very  awkward 
process  if  writing  is  placed  on  both  sides.     Otherwise  the 


54  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

process  is  simplicity  itself.  To  depart  from  this  rule  in  a  sin- 
gle instance  may  involve  the  loss  of  an  important  point  of 
evidence.  This  point  may  remain  forgotten  on  the  back  of  a 
card  used  frequently. 

4.  Express  the  idea  to  be  put  on  the  card  in  the  simplest  and  most 

direct  terms. 
In  the  reading,  an  idea  should  be  considered  only  in  its 
relation  to  the  reader's  present  purpose.  When  this  view  is 
taken  the  condensation  of  lengthy  articles  into  a  few  terse 
expressions  becomes  an  easy  matter.  Moreover,  it  trains 
the  reader  to  grasp  the  point,  and  to  express  that  point  in  the 
simplest  and  most  direct  manner.  This  training  enables  the 
reader  to  cover  a  much  wider  field  than  would  otherwise  be 
possible. 

5.  Each  card  should  be  complete  in  itself. 

By  a  strict  application  of  Rule  4  the  student  ought  soon 
to  acquire  such  facility  in  condensation  that  each  card  will 
be  complete  in  itself.  It  is  very  awkward  to  have  one  idea 
or  point  written  on  several  cards.  When  such  an  arrange- 
ment cannot  be  avoided  the  cards  should,  of  course,  be  let- 
tered or  numbered  to  indicate  their  proper  order.  These 
cards  should  be  placed  by  themselves  in  company  with  other 
like  series  and  kept  separate  from  the  single  cards.  Some 
manner  of  distinguishing  such  series  of  cards  should  be  de- 
vised. The  first  series  which  it  is  necessary  to  make  in  order 
to  record  a  complete  point,  or  idea,  or  argument  may  be 
marked  Ai,  A2,  A3,  etc.  The  second  series  may  be  marked 
Bi,  B2,  B3,  etc.  While  this  method  may  be  adopted  in  un- 
usual cases,  the  general  rule  should  seldom  be  departed  from. 
By  diligent  efforts  at  intelligent  condensation,  almost  every 
point,  idea,  fact,  or  argument  may  be  put  upon  a  single  card. 
The  observance  of  this  rule  will  insure  a  good  command  of 


EVIDENCE  ^^ 

the  material  on  the  part  of  the  investigator  and  will  reduce 
the  evidence  to  convenient  form. 

The  same  rule  should  apply  to  the  use  of  quotations.  Sel- 
dom if  ever  should  a  lengthy  quotation  be  used.  If  some 
passages  are  especially  clear  and  forcible  they  should  be 
quoted  exactly  and  put  in  quotation  marks.  Omissions 
should  be  indicated  by  the  use  of  dots,  thus :  .  .  .  Condensa- 
tions by  the  student,  included  in  the  quotation,  or  any  com- 
ments or  explanations,  should  be  enclosed  in  brackets,  [thus]. 

6.  Material  for  refutation  should  he  preceded  {at  the  top  of  the 

card)  by  an  exact  statement  of  the  argument  to  he  refuted. 
In  some  cases  a  single  word  or  phrase  may  be  sufficient 
to  indicate  the  argument  to  which  the  refutation  is  intended 
to  apply,  but  in  most  cases  this  argument  should  be  indicated 
fully  by  means  of  a  complete  statement.  This  condensing 
of  the  arguments  of  the  opposition  into  brief,  intelligible 
statements  will  also  be  of  great  use  when  the  material  is  put 
into  either  the  main  argument  or  the  rebuttal. 

7.  The  main  issue  or  subject  to  which  the  evidence  relates  should 

he  stated  at  the  top  of  the  card. 
The  subject  stated  at  the  top  of  the  card  should  represent 
exactly  the  subject-matter  on  the  card.  If  this  subject- 
matter  comes  clearly  under  one  of  the  main  issues  which  the 
analysis  has  revealed  this  main  issue  may  be  stated  at  the 
top  of  the  card  as  its  subject.  If,  however,  the  student  is 
unable  to  determine  exactly  under  what  main  issue  the  fact 
recorded  on  the  card  will  come,  he  should  state  a  subject  at 
the  top  of  the  card  which  will  indicate  precisely  the  material 
found  upon  it.  The  classification  of  the  card  can  then  be  left 
to  a  later  part  of  the  process.  In  investigating  a  subject  in 
which  the  main  issues  have  been  determined  to  be  (i)  Neces- 
sity, (2)  Practicability,  and  (3)  Justice,  a  card  which  states 
one  of  the  evils  which  the  proposed  plan  is  designed  to  remedy 


$6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

should  not  be  marked  "Justice;"  it  should  be  marked  "Ne- 
cessity," because  it  is  this  particular  evil  and  like  evils  which 
make  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  measure  necessary. 

If  the  card  relates  to  some  special  topic  that  the  main  issue 
is  too  broad  to  identify,  then  that  special  topic  and  not  the 
broad  main  issue  should  be  stated  at  the  top  of  the  card. 
For  example,  a  card  coming  under  Necessity  may  still  more 
appropriately  be  classed  under  Political  Influence,  because 
that  title  more  nearly  indicates  the  evidence  stated  on  the 
card.  Therefore  the  subject  should  be  Political  Influence. 
Later,  when  the  cards  are  being  used  in  the  construction  of 
the  brief,  this  card  may  be  placed  with  others  under  the  title 
Political  Influence  and  then  all  the  cards  under  this  topic 
placed  with  those  covering  other  topics  under  the  head  of 
Necessity. 

8.  The  source  from  which  the  evidence  is  taken  should  be  def- 
initely stated  at  the  bottom  of  the  card. 
This  should  be  done  at  the  time  the  cards  are  written  out. 
Otherwise  the  reference  when  wanted,  either  cannot  be  found 
or  can  be  found  only  with  great  loss  of  time.  The  exact 
reference  is  important  not  only  to  show  definitely  the  source 
of  authority  from  which  the  evidence  is  taken,  but  also  to 
enable  the  student  to  return  to  the  same  source  for  further 
details  in  case  they  become  necessary.  In  the  case  of  a  letter 
or  a  personal  interview  the  name  of  the  authority  consulted 
should  be  given  together  with  the  date  of  the  letter  or  the 
time  and  place  of  the  interview.  A  magazine  article  should 
be  referred  to  by  the  name  of  the  magazine,  with  the  volume 
and  page.  The  name  of  the  writer  should  also  be  given  unless 
the  article  is  an  editorial,  in  which  case  that  fact  should  be 
stated.  A  report  or  document  in  several  volumes  should  be 
quoted  by  volume  and  page.  Books  should  be  referred  to  by 
their  author,  title,  and  page. 


EVIDENCE  57 

The  following  diagram  shows  the  form  in  which  evidence 
should  be  recorded: 


Subject 


Authority 


Evidence 


Source  of  Evidence. 


For  example,  a  student  in  preparing  for  a  class  debate  on  the 
tariff  question  handed  in  a  number  of  cards  on  the  necessity 
for  protection,  of  which  the  following  is  a  sample: 


Subject:  Authority: 

Protection  not  needed.  Richard  T.  Ely. 


"Our  quondam  infant  industries  have  for  the  most 
part,  attained  a  very  vigorous  maturity,  and  in  some 
instances  have  become  belligerent  and  prone  to  monop- 
oHstic  bullying." 


Source:  Outlines  of  Economics,  p.  312. 


SUMMARY   OF   THE   REQUIREMENTS   FOR   RECORDING   EVIDENCE 

1.  Use  small  cards  or  sheets  of  paper  of  a  uniform  size. 

2.  Place  only  one  fact  or  point  on  each  card. 

3.  Write  only  on  one  side  of  the  card. 

4.  Express  the  idea  to  be  put  on  the  card  in  the  simplest  and 

most  direct  terms. 

5.  Each  card  should  be  complete  in  itself. 


58  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

6.  Material  for  refutation  should  be  preceded  at  the  top  oi 

the  card  by  an  exact  statement  of  the  argument  to  be 
refuted. 

7.  The  main  issues  or  subjects  to  which  the  evidence  relates 

should  be  stated  at  the  top  of  the  card. 

8.  The  source  from  which  the  evidence  is  taken  should  be  def- 

initely stated  at  the  bottom  of  the  card. 

III.  Selecting  evidence. 

All  the  reliable  evidence  obtainable  should  be  collected 
before  the  selection  of  the  exact  evidence  which  is  to  go  into 
the  argument  is  begun.  If  the  student  has  confined  his  col- 
lecting to  the  sources  of  evidence  suggested  in  the  first  section 
of  this  chapter,  the  presumption  will  be  in  favor  of  its  relia- 
bility. This  presumption  may  be  strengthened  and  in  some 
instances  turned  into  certainty  by  a  selection  made  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  rules  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  section 
to  present. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  a  large  amount  of 
evidence  from  which  to  construct  the  brief  and  argument  be 
available.  It  is  only  in  this  way  that  the  strongest  evidence 
obtainable  can  be  brought  to  the  support  of  the  argument. 
All  the  evidence  used  must  be  relevant  but  not  all  the  evi- 
dence that  is  relevant  need  be  used.  The  following  rules 
should  be  observed  in  the  selection  of  evidence : 

I.  The  evidence  must  come  from  the  most  reliable  source  to 
which  it  can  he  traced. 
All  the  evidence  collected  must  have  back  of  it  some  re- 
liable source,  as  indicated  in  the  discussion  of  Sources  of 
Authority.  The  more  trustworthy  this  source  the  more 
valuable  is  the  evidence  and  the  greater  the  weight  given  to 
it.  Therefore  "the  evidence  must  come  from  the  most  re- 
liable source  to  which  it  can  be  traced."  Every  fact  offered 
in  evidence  comes  from  some  definite  source.  If  this  source 
cannot  be  found  the  fact  should  be  discarded  as  worthless. 


EVIDENCE  59 

To  illustrate,  in  the  investigation  of  a  subject,  a  fellow-stu- 
dent may  know  some  fact  which  is  a  most  important  piece  of 
evidence  in  your  favor.  He  may  tell  you  about  this  fact,  but 
you  would  not  think  of  going  into  the  debate  and  quoting 
one  of  your  fellow-students  as  authority.  Therefore  you  will 
at  once  ask  the  student  from  what  source  he  obtained  knowl- 
edge of  the  fact.  He  may  reply  that  he  has  seen  it  in  a  news- 
paper article.  But  since  a  newspaper  is  usually  of  little  value 
as  an  authority,  you  cannot  rely  upon  its  statement.  There- 
fore you  inquire  from  what  source  the  newspaper  obtained 
it.  By  consulting  the  newspaper  it  is  found  that  the  state- 
ment is  made  in  an  editorial  which  comments  upon  an  article 
found  in  the  North  American  Revieiv.  You  must  then  consult 
the  number  of  the  North  American  Rcvieiv  to  which  reference 
is  made.  This  is  fairly  reliable,  and  anyone  would  feel  justi- 
fied in  quoting  it  as  the  source  of  his  evidence,  although  he 
would  not  feel  justified  in  quoting  the  statement  of  a  fellow- 
student  or  the  statement  of  a  newspaper. 

If  the  statement  is  one  which  is  an  opinion  of  the  editor 
of  the  North  American  Review,  or  if  for  any  other  reason  it 
cannot  be  traced  back  of  this  source.  North  American  Review, 
volume  and  page,  should  be  quoted  as  the  source  of  the  evi- 
dence. But  suppose  that  the  statement  can  be  traced  to  its 
original  source.  To  be  more  concrete,  let  us  assume  that 
the  statement  is  to  the  effect  that  there  is  a  surplus  of  over 
one  milHon  dollars  in  the  United  States  treasury.  For  such 
a  statement  the  North  American  Review  is  not  the  most  re- 
liable source.  In  this  case  the  most  reliable  source  is  the 
Report  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  which  can  be 
found  in  almost  any  library.  When  this  fact  is  located  the 
student  should  make  an  exact  statement  of  the  amount  of 
the  surplus  and  refer  to  the  Report  of  the  United  States  Treas- 
urer. 

Thus  the  fact  to  be  used  is  traced  through  the  statement 


6o  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

of  a  fellow-student,  through  the  editorial  in  the  newspaper, 
through  the  article  in  the  North  American  Review,  back  to  its 
original  and  trustworthy  source — the  Report  of  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States.  In  this  manner  every  fact  presented 
must  be  traced  to  its  most  trustworthy  source.  In  quoting 
the  opinions  of  individuals  the  same  principle  should  be  ap- 
pUed.  The  greater  the  learning,  ability,  and  reputation  of 
the  person  quoted,  the  greater  is  the  weight  attached  to  his 
opinions. 

In  almost  every  branch  of  human  endeavor  and  in  every 
field  of  knowledge  there  are  a  few  men  who  possess  especial 
ability.  By  common  consensus  of  opinion  these  men  are 
regarded  as  authorities  and  their  statements  of  fact  or  judg- 
ment are  accepted  as  the  most  trustworthy.  For  example, 
the  statements  of  Ely,  Seligman,  and  Seager  in  the  field  of 
economics,  and  the  statements  of  J.  P.  Morgan,  and  Andrew 
Carnegie  in  the  field  of  industry  and  finance,  are  regarded 
as  good  authority.  In  chemistry  the  statements  of  Dr.  Ira 
Remsen  would  be  considered  good,  while  in  regard  to  psy- 
chology one  could  do  no  better  than  to  quote  the  opinions  of 
Hugo  Miinsterberg.  Regarding  the  wireless  telegraph,  Mar- 
coni would  be  the  most  reliable  source,  while  in  the  field  of 
aerial  navigation  the  opinion  of  the  Wright  brothers  could 
be  quoted  as  the  most  reliable.  Instances  of  reputable  sources 
of  evidence  could  be  cited  sufiicient  in  number  to  cover  many 
pages,  but  the  few  here  suggested  will  serve  to  illustrate  the 
class  of  authority  to  which  all  points  of  evidence  should  be 
traced. 

2.  A  person  quoted  as  authority  must  he  unprejudiced,  in  full 
possession  of  the  facts,  and  capable  of  giving  expert  testi- 
mony on  the  point  at  issue. 
In  the  preceding  section  reUable  sources  of  evidence  have 

been  indicated  in  a  general  way.    It  is,  however,  by  no  means 


EVIDENCE  6l 

possible  in  the  treatment  of  all  subjects  to  cite  authorities 
so  universally  accepted.  The  opinions  of  persons  who  are 
not  known  to  the  general  public  may  be  given  weight  by 
means  of  their  official  position,  their  special  work  or  investiga- 
tion in  any  line,  or  by  the  favorable  statements  of  recognized 
authorities  regarding  them  or  their  work.  As  previously  sug- 
gested. Who's  Who  in  America,  is  a  storehouse  of  information 
regarding  such  people. 

An  opinion  or  even  a  statement  of  fact  is  not  likely  to  be 
looked  upon  with  favor  unless  it  comes  from  an  unprejudiced 
source.  It  is  not  so  much  the  question  of  actual  prejudice 
existing  in  the  mind  of  the  person  quoted  as  it  is  the  sur- 
rounding circumstances  which  would  naturally  tend  to  cause 
prejudice.  For  example,  the  statement  of  John  D.  Rocke- 
feller, in  regard  to  the  beneficent  effect  of  monopolies  on 
trade  and  commerce,  might  be  perfectly  sincere,  but  since 
John  D.  Rockefeller  has  a  financial  interest  in  the  maintain- 
ing of  a  monopoly,  it  would  not  be  advisable  to  quote  his 
statements  in  their  favor.  Such  statements  are  not  only 
easily  refuted  but  they  lack  weight  because  they  do  not 
appear  to  come  from  an  unprejudiced  source.  In  like  manner 
the  President  of  the  Brewers'  Association  would  not  be  ac- 
cepted as  authority  on  any  matter  connected  with  the  pro- 
hibition of  the  liquor  traffic.  From  the  very  circumstance 
of  his  position  he  is  presumed  to  be  prejudiced  against  such 
prohibition.  The  person  cited  as  authority  should  have 
no  financial  interest  in  the  subject  on  which  he  is  quoted. 
He  should  be  in  a  position  to  be  unprejudiced. 

The  person  quoted  as  authority  must  be  in  full  possession 
of  all  the  necessary  facts.  Very  often  this  knowledge  of 
facts  may  be  presumed  from  the  position  which  the  authority 
occupies.  The  Secretary  of  the  Navy  is  presumed  to  be  in 
full  possession  of  all  the  general  facts  concerning  his  depart- 
ment.   The  captain  of  a  battleship  would  be  presumed  to 


62  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

know  all  the  essential  facts  in  regard  to  his  ship.  An  engineei 
on  the  Panama  Canal  would  be  presumed  to  be  in  a  position 
to  know,  and  actually  to  know,  facts  connected  with  the  du- 
ties of  his  position.  The  authority  quoted  must  be  in  full 
possession  of  the  facts  which  he  is  quoted  to  prove,  or  upon 
which  his  opinion  is  based. 

Regarding  the  capability  of  an  authority  to  give  expert 
evidence  much  has  been  said.  It  is  well  to  remember,  how- 
ever, that  the  opinion  of  fact  or  judgment  must  be  in  the 
field  of  the  authority's  professional  knowledge.  The  most 
eminent  chemist  in  the  United  States  would  not  be  considered 
proper  authority  on  an  economic  question;  much  less  would 
the  most  eminent  economist  be  considered  good  authority 
on  some  problem  in  chemistry.  The  President  of  the  United 
States  might  be  quoted  as  the  highest  authority  on  the 
political  situation,  while  his  opinion  on  some  technical  prob- 
lem of  engineering  would  fall  before  a  counter  opinion  by 
an  eminent  engineer.  In  quoting  an  authority  to  establish 
an  important  point  in  evidence  it  is  often  advisable  to  show 
directly  that  he  is  unprejudiced,  in  full  possession  of  the 
facts,  and  capable  of  giving  expert  testimony. 

3.  Evidence  should  he  examined  to  determine  whether  there  are 
attendant  circumstances  which  will  add  to  its  weight. 
It  often  happens  that  evidence  which  is  good  in  itself  is 
given  still  greater  weight  by  some  special  circumstances.  The 
law  recognizes  and  gives  much  weight  to  "Declarations 
against  Interest,"  and  such  declarations  are  as  valuable  in 
argumentation  as  in  law.  A  declaration  against  interest  is  a 
statement  of  fact  or  opinion  made  by  a  party  before  the  sub- 
ject became  a  matter  of  controversy,  which  statement  is  now 
against  the  interest  of  the  person  making  it.  To  illustrate, 
let  us  suppose  that  John  D.  Rockefeller  had  made  a  statement 
opposing  the  formation  of  monopolies.    At  present  he  wishes 


EVIDENCE  63 

to  argue  in  favor  of  monopolies.  The  statement  which  he 
previously  made  and  which  was  an  expression  against  mo- 
nopohes  now  becomes  a  "  declaration  against  interest."  Like- 
wise any  statement  made  in  regard  to  a  subject  before  the 
party  making  it  becomes  interested  therein  financially  may 
be  used  against  him  when  the  matter  becomes  one  of  con- 
troversy and  he  wishes  to  take  a  different  position. 

Of  equal  value  is  the  opinion  frankly  expressed,  by  one 
whose  personal  interests  are  opposed  to  the  statement  made. 
Such  statements  are  sometimes  made  by  public  spirited  men 
in  the  interests  of  right  and  justice.  An  illustration  in  point 
is  that  of  the  banker  who  admitted  that  the  postal  savings 
bank  would  be  a  benefit  to  the  people  at  large,  although  he 
recognized  the  fact  that  it  would  injure  the  business  of  the 
private  banker,  a  class  to  which  he  himself  belonged.  Such 
statements  are  of  the  utmost  importance  when  they  come 
from  leading  members  of  the  class  against  which  they  con- 
stitute admissions.  Statements  made  by  persons  who  ex- 
press their  views  in  accordance  with  what  appears  to  them 
to  be  right  and  without  the  knowledge  that  they  are  talking 
against  their  own  interests  may  Hkewise  be  used  as  admis- 
sions. Such  were  the  statements  of  a  citizen  who  favored 
the  building  of  an  elevated  railroad  in  his  city.  He  believed 
that  such  a  highway  would  relieve  the  congested  condition 
of  the  streets  and  thus  benefit  the  public.  When  the  route 
for  the  proposed  road  was  definitely  located  he  found  that 
it  would  result  in  irreparable  damage  to  his  private  business. 
Although  he  at  once  changed  his  view  on  the  subject,  his 
previous  admissions  were  used  against  him  with  such  effect 
that  his  new  arguments  had  no  weight  in  the  final  determina- 
tion of  the  matter. 

It  very  often  happens  that  a  well  known  authority  fre- 
quently used  by  the  opponents  of  a  proposition  has  changed 
his  opinions  or  expressed  himself  more  definitely  in  such  a 


64  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

way  as  to  favor  the  speaker's  contentions.  Advantage  should 
always  be  taken  of  such  a  state  of  afifairs.  It  is  a  most  strate- 
gic move  to  be  able  to  quote  an  opponent's  authority  against 
him.  One  should  be  sure,  however,  that  the  authority  quoted 
is  such  as  will  be  accepted.  Otherwise  it  is  better  to  attack 
the  validity  of  this  authority. 

The  above  suggestions  and  illustrations  are  offered  purely 
by  way  of  inducing  the  student  to  keep  a  sharp  lookout  for 
points  in  his  favor.  There  are  many  ways  in  which  the 
attendant  circumstances  may  be  used  to  give  greater  weight 
to  the  evidence  offered. 

4.  The  selection  of  evidence  must  be  fair  and  reasonable. 

An  advocate  of  any  cause,  public  or  private,  must  have  as 
a  basis  for  his  argument  a  genuine  regard  for  right  and  jus- 
tice. Therefore  he  is  bound  to  exercise  due  care  in  making 
sure  that  the  selection  of  evidence  is  fair  and  reasonable.  No 
one  who  argues  can  gain  any  permanent  advantage  from  the 
use  of  unfair  methods.  In  using  quotations  from  authority 
be  sure  that  the  words  used  indicate  exactly  the  position  of 
that  authority.  By  skillful  omissions  a  reputable  authority 
may  be  made  to  defend  almost  any  position.  In  the  use  of 
statistics  the  temptation  to  juggle  is  sometimes  strong. 
Statistics,  by  skillful  combinations  and  omissions,  can  be 
made  to  prove  an  absolute  He.  In  discussing  the  income 
from  a  kind  of  state  tax  wliich  is  utilized  in  all  the  most 
important  states  in  the  Union,  the  student  who  selected  the 
states  of  Nevada,  South  Dakota,  and  Rhode  Island  to  show 
that  the  income  derived  from  the  tax  was  a  substantial  source 
of  revenue,  must  have  succeeded  only  in  proving  to  his  au- 
dience that  he  had  had  great  difi&culty  in  finding  states  in 
which  the  tax  had  proved  to  be  a  success.  Had  he  been  able 
to  produce  statistics  to  show  that  Massachusetts,  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Illinois  and  other  large  and  populous 


EVIDENCE  65 

states  were  using  his  form  of  taxation  with  success,  his  chance 
of  persuading  his  hearers  would  have  been  incalculably  in- 
creased. 

Not  only  must  evidence  be  fairly  selected  but  it  must  be 
reasonable  as  well.  No  statement  which  is  contrary  to  the 
usual  experience  of  the  individuals  addressed  should  be  made 
unless  it  is  based  upon  indisputable  authority.  Facts  outside 
the  pale  of  usual  human  experience  are  always  regarded  with 
distrust.  Abnormal  conditions,  such  as  the  existence  of  un- 
usual misery  or  vice  among  certain  classes,  oppression,  glar- 
ing social,  industrial,  or  political  evils,  must  always  be  kept 
within  the  bounds  of  possibility  and  based  upon  reliable 
authority.  The  temptation  is  often  strong  to  cite  instances 
on  account  of  their  sensational  character  and  the  probable 
striking  effect  upon  the  audience  or  readers.  Such  material 
is  sometimes  very  important,  but  if  it  even  approaches  the 
border  of  impossibility  it  should  be  fortified  by  the  strongest 
evidence. 

The  value  of  certain  evidence  may  be  greatly  increased  if 
it  can  be  shown  to  be  reasonable.  If  surrounding  circum- 
stances can  be  introduced  to  show  that  the  evidence  is  either 
cause  or  effect  and  therefore  something  naturally  to  be  ex- 
pected under  the  conditions  stated,  it  will  be  accepted  almost 
without  question.  All  evidence  should  be  carefully  considered 
from  the  two  standpoints  of  fairness  and  reasonableness.  To 
offer  unfair  evidence  is  dishonorable.  It  is  the  method  of 
the  swindler  and  the  trickster.  It  is  especially  reprehensible 
in  the  student  of  argimientation,  whose  first  duty  is  to  up- 
hold the  truth. 

5.  The  position  and  arguments  of  the  opposition  should  he 
taken  into  consideration. 
Argument  implies  opposition.     It  may  not  be  active  op- 
position, it  may  be  only  passive.    Arguments  advanced  for 


66  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

the  purpose  of  inducing  a  change  meet  conservatism,  preju- 
dice, and  the  natural  feeling  of  distrust  with  which  any  change 
is  contemplated.  These  obstacles  to  success  must  be  met 
squarely.  It  is  by  this  means  alone  that  they  can  be  over- 
come. In  the  analysis  of  the  question  the  necessity  of  finding 
the  main  contentions  on  both  sides  was  made  plain.  We 
have  now  reached  a  point  at  which  these  contentions  become 
of  great  importance.  The  arguments  of  the  opposition  must 
never  be  disregarded.  Many  important  advantages  besides 
the  economy  of  time  and  material,  come  from  the  selection 
of  such  evidence  as  will  uphold  the  constructive  argument 
and  at  the  same  time  overthrow  the  opposition.  The  selec- 
tion and  rejection  of  evidence  must  be  determined  from  this 
standpoint. 

6.  That  evidence  should  he  selected  which  will  appeal  most 
strongly  to  those  to  whom  the  argument  is  to  he  addressed. 
In  presenting  an  argument  the  writer  or  speaker  must  not 
always  rely  upon  his  own  judgment  as  the  criterion  of  the 
value  of  evidence.  He  must  take  the  standpoint  of  those 
who  are  to  hear  or  read.  This  attitude  presupposes  that  the 
evidence  offered  is  reliable.  If  a  speaker  or  writer  knows 
that  evidence  presented  is  unreliable  but  will  nevertheless 
be  accepted  by  his  auditors  or  readers,  he  is  perpetrating  a 
fraud  if  he  offers  it.  That  reliable  evidence  which  is  most 
hkely  to  appeal  to  those  before  whom  it  is  to  be  placed  should 
be  selected.  The  arguer  should  put  himself  in  the  position 
of  the  persons  to  be  persuaded,  and  ask  himself  the  question, 
"What  evidence  would  most  strongly  appeal  to  me  and  in- 
duce me  to  beUeve  and  act  in  the  manner  desired  if  I  were 
the  person  to  be  persuaded?"  The  accuracy  with  which  the 
advocate  can  perform  this  feat  often  measures  his  success. 
It  requires  the  highest  order  of  constructive  imagination. 
He  must  view  his  position  with  all  the  prejudices  and  pre- 


EVIDENCE  67 

conceived  ideas,  as  well  as  the  personal  interests,  of  the  per- 
sons to  be  persuaded.  He  must,  for  the  time  being,  lose  his 
character  as  an  advocate  and  assume  that  of  the  reader  or 
hearer. 

In  quoting  opinions  of  authority  this  attitude  of  mind 
becomes  most  important.  If  the  argument  is  to  be  addressed 
to  an  individual,  the  opinion  or  action  should  be  cited  of  some 
person  in  whom  that  individual  reposes  confidence.  If  you 
wish  to  persuade  John  Jones  to  follow  a  certain  course  of 
action,  and  you  are  aware  that  his  most  intimate  friend  and 
the  one  to  whom  he  looks  as  a  model  of  discretion  and  good 
judgment  is  Smith,  you  can  do  no  better  than  to  quote  the 
opinion  of  Smith,  if  Smith  has  expressed  himself  as  favoring 
your  contentions  or  if  he  has  followed  the  course  of  action 
which  you  desire  Jones  to  follow. 

In  addressing  an  organization  of  workmen  it  is  effective 
to  quote  the  opinions  of  their  high  officials  in  whom  they 
repose  trust  and  confidence.  Likewise  in  addressing  the 
members  of  any  trade,  profession,  business,  religious  faith, 
or  political  party,  the  opinions  of  persons  high  in  their  par- 
ticular field  of  endeavor  may  always  be  quoted.  Sources  of 
authority  with  which  the  audience  is  likely  to  be  in  sympathy 
should  be  especially  emphasized. 

In  selecting  evidence  with  which  to  prove  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  a  proposition  too  much  care  cannot  be  exercised. 
The  foregoing  rules  should  be  adhered  to  strictly.  They 
should  assert  themselves  automatically.  It  is  not  enough 
for  the  student  to  have  these  rules  of  argumentation  so  well 
in  mind  that  he  can  recite  them  in  class  and  give  them  when 
asked  for  in  an  examination;  he  should  have  them  so  well  in 
mind  that  they  become  a  part  of  the  argumentative  process. 
If  these  rules  can  be  remembered  only  with  difficulty  they 
will  not  be  used,  because  it  would  involve  too  much  trouble 
to  stop  and  apply  each  rule  to  every  fact  and  opinion  offered 


68  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

in  evidence.  After  the  rules  are  thoroughly  mastered,  a 
half-hour's  practice  in  their  application  will  serve  to  fix  the 
habit  of  judicious  selection  of  evidence  so  well  in  mind  that 
the  process  will  become  automatic. 

These  suggestions  in  regard  to  the  rules  for  selecting  evi- 
dence apply  with  equal  aptness  to  all  other  rules  in  this  book. 
The  person  who  wishes  to  become  a  master  of  argumentation 
must  be  able  to  command  the  rules  of  the  art. 

SUMMARY  OF  RULES   FOR  SELECTING  EVIDENCE 

1.  The  evidence  must  come  from  the  most  reliable  source  to 

which  it  can  be  traced. 

2.  A  person  quoted  as  authority  must  be  unprejudiced,  in  full 

possession  of  the  facts,  and  capable  of  giving  expert  testi- 
mony on  the  point  at  issue. 

3.  The  evidence  should  be  examined  to  determine  whether 

there  are  any  attendant  circumstances  which  will  add  to 
its  weight. 

4.  The  selection  of  evidence  must  be  fair  and  reasonable. 

5.  The  position  and  arguments  of  the  opposition  should  be 

taken  into  consideration. 

6.  That  evidence  which  will  appeal  most  strongly  to  those  to 

whom  the  argument  is  to  be  addressed  shoidd  be  selected. 

IV.  The  amount  of  evidence  required. 

The  investigator  must  not  stop  collecting  evidence  until 
he  has  amassed  a  sufficient  amount  to  prove  his  proposition. 
Naturally  the  question  is  at  once  asked,  "What  is  the  amoimt 
of  evidence  required  to  prove  a  proposition?"  To  answer 
this  question  in  a  satisfactory  manner  some  careful  thought 
is  required.  Since  we  are  regarding  argumentation  as  a 
practical  art,  and  since  when  we  consider  it  in  this  way  we 
must  conclude  that  its  end  is  action,  we  are  forced  to  admit 
that  the  amount  of  evidence  is  not  sufficient  unless  it  actually 
produces  the  result  aimed  at, — namely,  the  action  of  the 
person  or  persons  addressed  in  a  manner  which  conforms  to 


EVIDENCE  69 

the  wishes  of  the  arguer.  It  is  therefore  plain  that  the  amount 
of  evidence  required  varies  with  individual  cases.  The  arguer 
must  consider  the  importance  of  the  question  to  those  to 
whom  the  argument  is  addressed,  as  well  as  their  prejudices 
and  personal  interests.  He  must  consider  these  things  in 
their  relation  to  the  present  situation  and  then  determine 
the  amount  of  evidence  in  accordance  with  what  his  judg- 
ment tells  him  is  required.  If  the  argument  is  to  be  passed 
upon  by  judges  whose  duty  it  is  to  reach  a  conclusion  but 
who  are  not  personally  interested  in  the  result,  the  following 
rule  may  be  applied:  Sufficient  evidence  must  he  produced  to 
satisfy  an  unprejudiced  mind  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 

In  relying  upon  the  above  rule  we  must  eliminate  prejudice, 
personal  interest,  and  results  terminating  in  active  or  pro- 
longed action.  Therefore  if  prejudice  or  personal  interest 
exists  in  any  particular  case,  the  first  duty  is  to  remove  this 
prejudice  or  nulHfy  the  personal  interest.  If  active  or  pro- 
longed action  is  desired  evidence  sufficient  in  amount  to  in- 
duce this  action  must  be  produced.  With  these  two  limita- 
tions the  rule  stated  above  may  be  accepted  as  the  measure 
of  the  amount  of  evidence  required.  There  are,  of  course, 
some  facts  which  may  be  presented  without  relying  upon  any 
special  evidence  or  authority  for  their  truth.  All  facts  which 
are  matters  of  common  knowledge  come  within  this  class. 
Geographical  facts,  such  as  the  fact  that  Boston,  New  York, 
and  Savannah  are  seaports;  historical  facts,  such  as  the  fact 
that  Alaska  was  purchased  from  Russia;  political  facts,  such 
as  the  fact  that  the  Southern  States  are  largely  adherents 
of  the  Democratic  Party;  and  things  which  must  have  hap- 
pened in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature,  such  as  the  presiuned 
death  of  a  person  born  two  hundred  years  ago,  all  may  be 
stated  without  evidence  to  support  them. 

In  determining  the  amount  of  evidence  to  be  offered  it  is 
sometimes  necessary  to  consider  the  different  sources  from 


70  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

which  it  is  derived.  Care  should  be  taken  not  to  place  too 
great  reliance  upon  one  source.  For  example,  in  a  debate 
on  the  prohibition  question  one  speaker  quoted  statistics 
from  a  bulletin  issued  by  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  he  relied 
for  proof  of  his  facts  upon  a  committee  report  of  the  Anti- 
Saloon  League,  he  offered  the  opinion  of  the  President  of  the 
Anti-Saloon  League,  and  finally  quoted  from  the  argument 
of  a  lawyer  who  is  employed  by  the  Anti-Saloon  League. 
Aside  from  the  charge  of  prejudice  which  might  be  made 
against  this  evidence,  it  is  readily  seen  that  too  much  reliance 
is  placed  in  one  authority.  It  might  well  be  termed  "an 
Anti-Saloon  League  argument."  No  person  is  willing  to 
accept  some  other  person's  opinion  or  evidence  in  preference 
to  his  own,  but  if  a  number  of  authorities  have  arrived  at 
substantially  the  same  conclusion,  or  can  offer  evidence  which 
points  to  the  same  conclusion,  and  there  has  been  no  collusion 
between  them,  any  reasonable  person  will  give  such  conclu- 
sions his  most  serious  consideration.  Furthermore,  if  the 
speaker  or  writer  indicates  that  his  evidence  comes  from 
various  sources,  it  inspires  confidence  in  his  words,  since  the 
variety  of  the  evidence  offered  indicates  that  the  investigation 
has  been  broad  and  thorough. 

The  process  of  collecting  evidence  set  forth  in  this  chapter 
may  be  used  in  other  fields  besides  that  of  argumentation. 
Every  individual  has  frequent  occasion  to  collect  evidence 
regarding  certain  subjects  connected  with  his  business  or 
occupation.  Whatever  the  occasion  for  investigation  the 
method  of  collecting  evidence  herein  presented  can  be  used 
to  great  advantage. 

The  student  of  argumentation  is  cautioned  to  follow  ex- 
plicitly the  directions  contained  in  this  chapter.  All  the 
available  sources  of  evidence  should  be  consulted.  The 
rules  regarding  the  recording  of  evidence  should  be  adhered 
to   strictly.     The   recorded   evidence   should   be   carefully 


EVIDENCE  71 

Studied,  with  the  view  of  determining  its  relative  importance, 
according  to  the  rules  laid  down  for  the  selection  of  evidence. 
The  student  should  feel  satisfied  in  his  own  mind  that  he  has 
secured  an  amount  of  evidence  sufl&cient  to  establish  each 
main  issue.  Then  after  these  tasks  are  completed  he  can  turn 
his  attention  to  the  next  great  step  in  argumentation, — the 
Construction  of  the  Brief. 

EXERCISES  IN  COLLECTING  EVIDENCE 

1.  Make  out  a  list  of  topics  under  which  you  would  look  for 
material  on  the  following  propositions: 

a.  The  United  States  should  impose  a  tariff  for  revenue  only. 

b.  The  United  States  should  provide  for  an  immediate  in- 

crease in  the  navy. 

c.  Intercollegiate  football  should  be  abolished. 

d.  Children  under  fourteen  years  of  age  should  be  prohibited 

by  law  from  working  in  factories. 

e.  Marriage  and  divorce  should  be  controlled  by  Federal  law. 

2.  What  sources  of  evidence  would  you  consult  in  regard  to  each 
of  the  above  propositions?  State  one  or  more  items  (books,  mag- 
azine articles,  persons,  or  documents)  under  each  source. 

3.  Write  out  and  hand  in  for  inspection  ten  cards  on  one  of  the 
above  propositions.  These  cards  should  show  the  application  of 
all  the  rules  given  for  recording  evidence. 

4.  Apply  to  these  cards  the  rules  to  be  observed  in  selecting 
evidence.  Does  any  one  of  these  cards  or  any  combination  of  the 
cards  show  evidence  sufl&cient  in  amount  to  prove  any  one  con- 
tention? 


CHAPTER  V 

CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF 

The  construction  of  a  brief  is  a  most  interesting  task,  for 
the  bringing  of  order  out  of  chaos  always  gives  a  thrill  of 
satisfaction  to  the  active  thinker.  It  indicates  the  mastery 
of  the  himian  mind  over  material  facts  and  conditions.  In 
this  as  in  all  other  spheres  of  endeavor  the  joy  of  victory  pos- 
sesses him  who  overcomes. 

The  work  of  constructing  a  brief  is  usually  looked  upon  by 
the  uninitiated  with  considerable  apprehension.  It  is  re- 
garded as  a  most  difficult  task,  and  so  it  is.  But  the  difficulty 
of  the  task  is  greatly  overshadowed  by  the  pleasure  which 
may  be  derived  from  it,  providing  the  preliminary  work  has 
been  done  thoroughly.  Every  step  in  the  argumentative 
process  up  to  this  point  must  have  been  taken  with  diligence. 
If  this  work  has  been  well  done  the  student  finds  himself  in 
the  possession  of  a  large  amount  of  evidence.  The  analysis 
of  the  proposition  and  the  collecting  of  the  evidence  have 
given  the  student  a  broad  outlook  over  the  field  to  be  covered 
by  the  brief.  Now,  to  get  the  most  comprehensive  view  of 
this  field,  he  must  look  at  it  from  the  standpoint  of  the  Pur- 
pose of  the  Brief. 

I.  The  purpose  of  the  brief. 

The  purpose  of  the  brief  is  to  furnish  a  solid  framework  for 
the  argument.  It  indicates  definitely  the  path  which  the 
argument  is  to  follow.  It  maps  out  a  continuous  course  of 
procedure  ending  at  the  conclusion  wliich  it  is  the  purpose  of 
the  argument  to  establish.     To  develop  one  of  the  above 

72 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  73 

figures  of  speech  still  further,  we  may  regard  the  brief  as  the 
framework  of  the  vehicle  which  carries  the  argument  along 
the  straight  road  which  leads  to  persuasion. 

The  brief  enables  the  writer  or  speaker  to  present  his  argu- 
ments in  logical  order,  to  indicate  the  relation  which  the 
evidence  bears  to  the  arguments,  and  to  give  unity  and  co- 
herence to  the  finished  product.  Without  a  well  constructed 
brief  an  argument  will  inevitably  be  more  or  less  rambling 
and  incoherent;  with  a  well  constructed  brief  each  piece  of 
evidence  can  be  utilized  in  the  place  where  it  will  do  the  most 
good.  The  facts  of  evidence  can  be  arranged  in  climactic 
order  and  the  proper  proportion  given  to  the  completed 
structure.  By  keeping  these  objects  in  mind  the  work  of 
building  a  brief  out  of  the  evidence  collected  may  be  intel- 
ligently begun. 

II.  Method  of  constructing  the  brief. 

The  work  of  constructing  the  brief  should  be  begun  with 
all  the  evidence,  which  has  been  collected  and  recorded  on 
cards  or  slips  of  paper,  ready  at  hand.  By  this  time  the  in- 
vestigator has  probably  determined  whether  he  wishes  to 
make  any  alteration  in  his  original  analysis.  If  any  altera- 
tions seem  advisable  they  should  be  made  before  pro- 
ceeding. 

The  analysis  of  the  question  reveals  the  main  issues.  In 
order  to  make  the  work  of  construction  as  simple  as  possible 
let  us  suppose  that  the  evidence  has  been  collected  on  the 
affirmative  of  the  following  proposition:  "Resolved,  that  all 
cities  in  the  United  States  having  a  population  of  over  5000 
should  adopt  the  commission  form  of  city  government." 
The  analysis  of  the  question  has  shown  that  in  order  to  es- 
tablish the  truth  of  this  proposition  it  is  necessary  to  prove 
these  three  main  issues:  (i)  That  the  proposed  plan  is  neces- 
sary, (2)  That  the  proposed  plan  is  good  in  theory,  and  (3) 


74  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

That  the  proposed  plan  works  well  in  practice.  Each  of  these 
three  main  issues  should  be  written  on  a  separate  piece  of 
paper,  an  extra  slip  of  paper  should  be  marked  "Introduc- 
tion," and  still  another  "Refutation."  These  five  slips  of 
paper  should  be  spread  out  on  a  table  and  the  work  of  classify- 
ing the  cards  begun.  All  cards  containing  facts  or  opinions 
which  show  the  necessity  for  the  plan  should  be  placed  on 
the  paper  marked  "The  proposed  plan  is  necessary,"  those 
dealing  with  theory  should  be  placed  on  the  paper  marked 
"The  proposed  plan  is  good  in  theory,"  and  those  dealing 
with  the  practical  side  of  the  question  should  be  placed  on 
the  paper  marked  "The  proposed  plan  works  well  in  prac-^ 
tice."  To  be  more  concrete,  suppose  we  have  one  card  which 
contains  a  statement  from  the  mayor  of  Galveston,  Texas, 
in  which  he  says  that  the  commission  form  of  city  govern- 
ment has  worked  successfully  in  that  city;  another  card  on 
which  are  statistics  showing  that  the  practical  operation  of 
the  commission  plan  in  Des  Moines,  Iowa,  has  resulted  in 
reducing  the  governmental  expenses  of  that  city;  and  still 
another  card  which  shows  that  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan, 
has  successfully  used  the  commission  form  of  city  govern- 
ment for  ten  years.  All  of  these  cards  would,  of  course, 
be  placed  under  the  heading  "The  proposed  plan  works 
well  in  practice."  Cards  treating  the  origin,  history,  and 
other  matters  discussed  in  the  analysis  of  the  question 
should  be  placed  under  "Introduction,"  while  cards  con- 
taining material  for  refutation  should  be  placed  under 
"Refutation." 

Sometimes  there  will  arise  a  question  as  to  which  of  two 
heads  most  properly  includes  the  material  on  a  particular 
card.  In  such  a  case  the  student  must  use  his  best  judgment. 
If  the  point  is  very  important  and  the  doubt  great,  a  dupli- 
cate card  may  be  made  out  and  one  card  placed  imder  each 
heading.    Then  when  the  brief  is  being  written  out  a  more 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  75 

intelligent  decision  can  be  made.  Such  difficulties  as  this, 
however,  are  infrequent,  providing  proper  care  has  been  taken 
in  making  the  analysis  of  the  question.  The  main  issues 
should  be  distinct  from  each  other  and  the  line  of  demarca- 
tion between  them  should  be  clear  cut.  If  this  require- 
ment is  complied  with,  the  classification  of  the  cards  in  the 
manner  above  described  is  a  comparatively  simple  mat- 
ter. 

Now  that  the  cards  have  been  divided,  each  pile  can  be 
more  easily  studied  than  could  the  large  original  pile.  A 
half-hour  spent  in  arranging  and  rearranging  the  cards  and 
in  reading  them  over  in  various  connections  will  yield  more 
information  regarding  the  way  in  which  the  argument  should 
be  put  together  than  a  whole  day  spent  in  unaided  pon- 
dering. 

The  cards  should  be  examined  with  the  object  in  view  of 
making  a  subdivision  of  the  material  under  each  main  issue. 
To  illustrate,  an  examination  of  the  cards  under  the  first 
main  issue  above  discussed,  viz.  "That  the  proposed  plan 
of  city  government  is  necessary,"  reveals  the  fact  that  this 
main  issue  "necessity"  may  be  discussed  under  three  heads: 
(i)  PoKtical  necessity,  (2)  Social  necessity,  (3)  Financial 
necessity.  Now  we  proceed  to  divide  the  pack  of  cards  on 
necessity  into  three  parts,  corresponding  to  the  above  divi- 
sion. This  is  done  in  the  same  manner  in  which  the  original 
pack  was  divided  into  five  packs.  Each  of  these  smaller 
packs  should  then  be  carefully  examined  in  order  to  deter- 
mine whether  a  further  subdivision  is  advisable.  The  process 
should  be  continued  until  all  the  recorded  evidence  is  clas- 
sified. Then  each  pack  of  cards  should  be  carefully  labelled 
with  the  name  of  the  subdivision  to  which  it  belongs,  and 
kept,  with  its  fellows  of  the  same  subdivision,  imder  the  divi- 
sion to  which  they  belong,  and  all  the  members  of  each  divi- 
sion should  be  kept  under  the  main  issue  to  which  they  be- 


76  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

long.  The  student  must  in  the  same  way  make  himself 
familiar  with,  and  classify,  the  cards  under  the  headings  of 
"Introduction"  and  "Refutation."  Next  comes  the  task 
of  arranging  these  groups  of  cards  in  their  proper  order. 
In  making  this  arrangement  two  principles  should  be  kept 
constantly  in  mind.  In  the  first  place  the  order  of  arrange- 
ment must  be  logical;  in  the  second  place  the  divisions  should 
be  arranged  in  climactic  order  wherever  possible.  The 
strongest  argument  should  be  put  last  unless  there  is  an  im- 
portant logical  objection  to  putting  it  in  that  position.  In 
arranging  the  order  of  the  main  issues  above  discussed, 
"necessity"  should  be  placed  first,  because  the  necessity  for 
a  thing  paves  the  way  for  its  adoption.  It  is  the  logical 
beginning.  Theory  should  be  placed  second,  and  last  of  all 
the  argument  "practice,"  because  nothing  can  constitute  a 
stronger  argument  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  a  plan  than 
to  show  that  it  has  already  worked  well  in  many  instances. 
This  arrangement  is  not  only  the  climactic  order,  but  from 
the  psychological  standpoint  it  makes  the  strongest  impres- 
sion. The  process  of  arranging  groups  in  their  logical  order 
should  be  carried  on  until  the  cards  comprising  the  smallest 
group  are  placed  in  what  appears  to  be  the  order  dictated  by 
logical  sequence  and  climactic  effect. 

After  the  evidence  has  been  duly  arranged  in  accordance 
with  the  method  just  explained,  the  task  of  writing  out  the 
brief  formally  may  be  commenced. 

III.  Rules  for  constructing  a  brief. 

I.  A  brief  should  be  composed  of  three  parts:  Introduction, 
Proof,  and  Conclusion. 
The  three  parts  of  the  brief.  Introduction,  Proof,  and 
Conclusion,  should  bear  a  well  regulated  proportion  to  each 
other.  The  tendency  of  the  beginner  is  to  make  the  intro- 
duction too  long:  a  two  page  introduction  to  a  three  page 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  77 

brief  is  absurd.  The  proof  should  occupy  by  far  the  greater 
part  of  the  brief,  the  introduction  should  be  as  compact  as 
is  consistent  with  its  purpose,  and  the  conclusion  should  be 
shorter  than  the  introduction. 

2.  Each  statement  in  a  brief  should  be  a  single  complete  sen- 

tence. 
The  sentences  of  the  brief  must  be  grammatically  correct. 
Each  idea  should  be  carefully  thought  out  and  presented  in 
a  short,  simple,  direct,  and  comprehensive  sentence,  for  long 
and  complicated  sentences  lead  to  ambiguity.  Moreover, 
the  sentence  must  contain  but  one  central  idea,  which  must 
be  stated  completely.  Mere  topics  are  not  sufficient.  The 
word  "Practicable"  should  not  be  made  to  represent  the 
entire  statement  that  "The  commission  form  of  city  govern- 
ment is  practicable,"  but  the  complete  statement  should  be 
written  out. 

3.  The  relation  which  the  different  statements  in  a  brief  bear  to 

each  other  should  be  hidicated  by  symbols  and  hidenta- 
tions. 

Every  statement  in  the  brief  must  stand  either  directly  or 
indirectly  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  If  a 
statement  stands  as  direct  proof  of  the  proposition,  this  fact 
must  be  indicated;  if  as  indirect,  this  fact  must  also  be  in- 
dicated. The  statements  which  stand  as  direct  proof  should 
be  marked  with  the  same  kind  of  symbols  and  indented  in 
the  same  way.  This  enables  the  reader  to  glance  over  the 
brief  and  see  the  main  issues  standing  out  distinctly  from 
the  subordinate  statements. 

The  system  of  symbols  used  is  immaterial,  proxdding  they 
serve  the  purpose  above  indicated.  For  the  sake  of  uni- 
formity, however,  it  is  suggested  that  the  student  adhere  to 
the  following  plan: 


78  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

This  proposition  is  true,  for 

I ,for 

A ,for 

I ,  for 

a ,  f  or 

(i) ,for 

(a) ,  for 

(x) ,for 

(y) ,for 

B ,for 

I .  .  etc. 

II ,for 

A 

etc. 

B 

etc. 

The  above  symbols  with  their  appropriate  indentations 
are  sufi&cient  in  variety  for  almost  any  brief.  To  make  this 
plan  more  concrete  let  us  suppose  that  the  proposition  is 
held  to  be  true  for  two  reasons.  These  reasons  then  are  the 
main  issues,  and  are  coordinate  so  far  as  subject-matter  is 
concerned;  therefore  they  are  placed  with  the  symbols  I 
and  II,  which  are  next  to  the  left  hand  margin  of  the  paper. 
There  are  two  main  reasons  for  I,  and  these  are  marked  A 
and  B,  with  a  greater  indentation  from  the  left  hand  margin 
than  I.  There  is  one  reason  for  A  and  it  is  marked  i  with  a 
slightly  greater  indentation  from  the  margin  than  A.  If 
there  were  two  reasons  the  second  one  would  be  marked  2 
with  the  same  indentation  as  i.  That  is,  the  same  arrange- 
ment applies  throughout  the  entire  system  that  appHes  to  I 
and  II,  and  A  and  B.  There  is  one  reason  for  i  and  it  is 
marked  a  with  a  sHghtly  greater  indentation ;  the  reason  for  a 
is  marked  (i),  and  the  reason  for  (i)  is  marked  (a).    There 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  79 

are  two  facts  which  prove  the  truth  of  (a)  and  they  are  marked 
(x)  and  (y).  In  this  way  the  entire  brief,  whether  long  or 
short,  is  worked  out  and  the  relation  existing  between  all  its 
parts  clearly  shown. 

4.  The  introduction  should  contain  the  main  issues,  together 
with  a  brief  statement  of  the  process  of  analysis  by  which 
they  were  found. 

As  previously  stated,  in  making  the  analysis  of  a  proposi- 
tion an  unprejudiced  standpoint  must  be  taken.  This  is 
true  because  the  object  is  to  find  the  statements  which  if 
proved  will  estabhsh  the  truth  of  the  proposition.  Since  it 
is  the  object  of  the  introduction  to  set  forth  the  main  issues 
it  must  contain  nothing  but  the  process  of  analysis  by  which 
these  issues  were  derived.  There  must  be  no  statements 
which  require  proof  and  none  which  indicate  a  prejudice 
in  favor  of  one  side  or  the  other. 

A  long  introduction  must  be  avoided,  because  it  is  almost 
sure  to  contain  irrelevant  matter.  Furthermore,  a  reader  or 
hearer  is  not  going  to  keep  in  mind  all  the  history,  conditions, 
definitions,  and  hmitations  which  a  long  introduction  may 
properly  include,  unless  they  are  briefly  expressed  and  lead 
straight  to  the  heart  of  the  controversy.  Again,  a  long  intro- 
duction is  tiresome.  The  writer  once  heard  a  prominent 
United  States  Senator  say,  after  acting  as  judge  of  a  college 
debate:  "Boil  down  your  introduction.  The  men  who  pass 
on  what  you  have  to  say,  whether  in  business,  politics,  or 
education,  want  to  know  what  you  believe  and  why  you  be- 
lieve it.  Get  at  the  'because'  part  of  your  speech  without 
delay." 

The  process  of  analysis  may  have  been  long  and  laborious, 
but  once  the  main  issues  have  been  found  it  is  easy  to  point 
out  the  way  to  them.  In  the  Lincoln-Douglas  Debates, 
which  are  masterpieces  of  this  kind  of  work,  the  introductions 


8o  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

are  exceedingly  short  as  compared  with  the  length  of  the 
speeches.  No  time  is  wasted  in  getting  to  the  points  at  issue. 
A  carefully  worked  out  analysis  may  be  presented  briefly  for 
it  is  seldom  necessary  to  an  understanding  of  the  question  to 
discuss  its  origin,  its  history,  the  admitted  matter  and  the 
contentions  of  both  sides.  Seldom  is  it  important  to  discuss 
more  than  two  of  these  topics.  Those  phases  of  analysis 
which  afford  the  shortest  route  to  the  main  issues  should  be 
chosen.  While  some  brief  writers  prefer  to  give  the  whole 
process  of  analysis,  this  makes  the  brief  unnecessarily  long. 
Suppose  that  you  went  into  the  forest  for  the  purpose  of 
finding  a  certain  tree.  You  began  a  systematic  search  in 
which  you  traveled  back  and  forth  through  the  forest  for 
three  days.  At  last  you  found  the  tree.  It  is  but  a  half- 
hour's  walk  from  the  edge  of  the  forest.  Would  you  take 
those  to  whom  you  wish  to  show  the  tree  over  the  path  which 
you  traveled  in  the  three  days'  search,  or  would  you  lead 
them  directly  to  it?  The  answer  is  obvious.  Why,  then, 
should  we  weary  the  reader  or  hearer  with  a  long  introduction 
in  which  all  the  steps  taken  in  search  of  the  main  issues  are 
set  forth,  when  we  can  state  one  or  two  of  these  steps  and 
arrive  at  the  main  issues  without  delay? 

Lincoln,  in  his  first  inaugural  address,  shows  the  virtue  of 
a  brief  introduction.  He  might  have  dwelt  long  upon  the 
origin  of  the  question  which  he  feared  would  sever  the  Union; 
lie  might  have  given  extensively  the  history  of  slavery  and 
the  controversies  resulting  from  it;  he  might  have  com- 
pounded definitions  based  upon  the  highest  authorities;  and 
all  of  this  would  have  been  relevant  matter  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  his  speech.  Moreover,  there  is  no  doubt  that  all  of 
these  matters  had  been  considered  by  him  in  his  analysis  of 
the  question.  But  when  he  wished  to  lead  his  hearers  to  the 
main  issues  which  his  analysis  revealed,  he  chose  the  simplest 
and  most  direct  route.    After  a  brief  introductory  sentence 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  8l 

he  employed  the  process  of  elimination  to  cut  away  all  ex- 
traneous matter  by  saying: 

"I  do  not  consider  it  necessary  at  present  for  me  to  dis- 
cuss those  matters  of  administration  about  which  there  is  no 
special  anxiety  or  excitement." 

Then  he  at  once  took  up  the  subjects  of  slavery  and  secession, 
to  which  his  elimination  of  extraneous  material  had  narrowed 
the  question. 

The  same  brevity  and  directness  characterizes  Lincoln's 
introduction  to  his  Cooper  Institute  speech.  Here  a  state- 
ment of  admitted  matter  forms  the  means  by  which  the  point 
at  issue  is  reached.  This  offers  an  introduction  which  is 
impartial,  since  both  sides  indorsed  it,  and  the  main  issues 
arose  out  of  the  different  interpretation  which  the  Lincoln- 
Republicans  and  the  Douglas-Democrats  placed  upon  it. 
The  crucial  part  of  the  introduction  is  as  follows: 

"In  his  speech  last  autumn  at  Columbus,  Ohio,  as  reported 
in  the  New  York  'Times'  Senator  Douglas  said:  'Our 
fathers,  when  they  framed  the  government  under  which  we 
live,  understood  this  question  just  as  well,  and  even  better, 
than  we  do  now.'  I  fully  indorse  this,  and  I  adopt  it  as  a 
text  for  this  discourse.  I  so  adopt  it  because  it  furnishes  a 
precise  and  an  agreed  starting-point  for  a  discussion  between 
Republicans  and  that  wing  of  the  Democracy  headed  by 
Senator  Douglas.  It  simply  leaves  the  inquiry:  What  was 
the  understanding  those  fathers  had  of  the  question  men- 
tioned?" 

It  is  seen  that  these  statements  bring  us  directly  to  the 
point  at  issue  through  the  statement  of  admitted  matter. 
The  adoption  of  this  admitted  matter  makes  necessary  some 
definitions.  Lincoln  gives  these  with  clearness  and  exact- 
ness. ''The  frame  of  government  under  which  we  live,"  is 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  "The  fathers"  that 
framed  this  constitution  were  the  thirty-nine  men  who  signed 


82  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

the  original  instrument.  The  "  question  "  which  these  fathers 
understood,  "just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now," 
was:  "Does  the  proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  au- 
thority, or  anything  in  the  constitution,  forbid  our  Federal 
Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  our  Federal  Terri- 
tories?" Then  Lincoln  continues:  "Upon  tliis,  Senator 
Douglas  holds  the  affirmative,  and  the  Repubhcans  the 
negative.  This  affirmation  and  denial  form  an  issue;  and 
this  issue — this  question — is  precisely  what  the  text  declares 
our  fathers  understood  "  better  than  we."  Let  us  now  inquire 
whether  the  "thirty-nine,"  or  any  of  them,  ever  acted  upon 
this  question;  and  if  they  did,  how  they  acted  upon  it — how 
they  expressed  that  better  understanding."  Thus  Lincoln 
brings  his  hearers  to  the  proof  of  his  argument — to  the  point 
where  it  introduces  evidence  to  show  that  the  great  majority 
of  these  men  answered  the  question  by  voting  for  the  prohi- 
bition of  slavery. 

Now  let  us  write  out  a  formal  brief  of  this  introduction 
and  thus  determine  just  what  matters  it  really  includes. 

NEGATIVE    BRIEF 

Proposition:  Resolved,  that  the  proper  division  of  local  from 
Federal  authority  or  the  Constitution,  forbids 
our  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to 
slavery  in  our  Federal  territories. 

INTRODUCTION 

I.  Statement  of  admitted  matter.  , 

A.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  understood  this  ques- 
tion better  than  we  do. 

II.  Definition  of  terms. 

A.  "The  frame  of  government  under  which  we  Hve"  is  the 

Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

1.  The  original  Constitution. 

2.  The  amendments. 

B.  "The  fathers"  were  the  thirty-nine  men  who  signed  the 

original  document. 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  8$ 

C.  The  "question"  which  these  fathers  understood  "just  as 
well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now,"  is:  "Does  the 
proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  authority,  or  any- 
thing in  the  Constitution,  forbid  our  Federal  Govern- 
ment to  control  as  to  slavery  in  our  Federal  Terri- 
tories? 

III.  The  question  is,  therefore,  "Did  the  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution understand  that  the  Federal  Government  is  prohibited 
from  controUing  slavery  in  the  territories?" 

The  affirmative  answers  Yes,  The  negative  answers  No, 
for:  for: 

1.  their  words  and  actions  i.  their  words  and  actions 

prove  that  the  Fed-  prove  that  the  Fed- 
eral Government  is  eral  Government  is 
prohibited  from  con-  given  power  to  con- 
trolling slavery  in  the  trol  slavery  in  the 
territories.  territories. 

2.  The   first    Congress  2.  The  first  Congress  which 

framed      annulments  contained   sixteen   of 

which    deny    this  the  "thirty-nine"  ex- 

power,  ercised  this  power. 

IV.  The  special  issues  resulting  from  this  clash  of  opinion  are: 

1.  Did  the  words  and  actions  of  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 

tution show  that  the  Federal  Government  is  prohibited 
from  controUing  slavery  in  the  territories? 

2.  Did  the  First  Congress,  which  contained  a  part  of  these 

framers  and  which  understood  their  intentions,  show 
that  it  believed  the  Federal  Government  to  be  prohibited 
from  controlling  slavery  in  the  territories? 

The  foregoing  introduction  shows  well  the  brevity  and 
directness  which  should  characterize  the  first  division  of  a 
brief.  The  subject-matter  indicates  the  impartial  manner 
in  which  the  subject  is  discussed  throughout  the  introduction. 
Nothing  is  stated  which  requires  proof.  The  speaker  selects 
common  ground  upon  which  both  parties  to  the  controversy 
have  agreed  to  stand.  From  this  position  he  leads  his  op- 
ponents by  logical  steps  to  the  arguments  which  he  advances. 


84  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

When  the  student  has  once  found  the  main  issues  he  should 
eliminate  all  useless  steps  in  the  analysis  and  present  with 
clearness  and  force  the  necessary  parts  of  the  process  which 
lead  directly  to  the  proof. 

5.  The  main  statements  in  the  proof  should  correspond  to  the 
main  issues  set  forth  in  the  introduction,  and  should  read  as 
reasons  for  the  truth  of  the  proposition. 
The  object  of  the  introduction  to  the  brief  is  to  set  forth 
the  main  issues.     In  Uke  manner  the  object  of  the  proof  is 
to  set  forth  the  evidence  which  supports  these  main  issues. 
Therefore  the  main  issues  constitute  the  main  headings  of 
the  second  division  of  the  brief.     Moreover,  these  main 
issues  must  all  read  directly  as  reasons  for  the  truth  of  the 
proposition.    To  illustrate  this  rule,  let  us  consider  the  fol- 
lowing example. 

BRIEF 

Proposition:  Resolved,  that  the  policy  of  protection  should  be 
abandoned  by  the  United  States. 

INTRODUCTION 

'^     \  (First  part  of  introduction  omitted) 

III.  The  clash  of  opinion  reveals  the  following  issues: 

A.  Is  protection  sound  in  theory? 

B.  Is  protection  sound  in  practice? 

PROOF 

I.  Protection  is  unsound  in  theory,  for 

A 

B ,  etc. 

II.  Protection  is  unsound  in  practice,  for 

A 

B ,etc. 

The  above  example  sets  forth  the  form  in  which  these 
main  issues  appear  in  the  proof  of  the  brief.  The  validity 
of  the  reasoning  which  connects  the  main  issues  with  the 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  8$ 

proposition  may  be  tested  by  putting  the  word  "because" 
or  "for"  after  the  proposition  and  reading  it  in  connection 
with  each  main  issue;  thus: 

A.  The  poHcy  of  protection  should  be  abandoned  by  the 

United  States  because  (or  for)  protection  is  unsound  in 
theory. 

B.  The  policy  of  protection  should  be  abandoned  by  the 

United  States  because  (or  for)  protection  is  unsound 

in  practice. 
Each  main  issue  should  be  tested  in  the  manner  suggested 
above.  This  will  show  whether  the  proper  logical  relation 
exists  between  the  main  issues  and  the  proposition.  A  further 
test  may  be  applied  by  inverting  the  order  of  the  main  issues 
and  the  proposition  and  joining  the  two  by  the  word  "  there- 
fore," as  follows:  A.  Protection  is  unsound  in  theory;  there- 
fore the  poHcy  of  protection  should  be  abandoned  by  the 
United  States.  B.  Protection  is  unsound  in  practice;  there- 
fore the  policy  of  protection  should  be  abandoned  by  the 
United  States.  But  the  words  "hence"  or  "therefore," 
should  never  be  used  in  a  brief,  because  they  reverse  the 
natural  order  and  make  the  main  statements  subordinate. 
After  making  sure  that  each  main  issue  is  stated  so  that 
it  reads  as  a  reason  for  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  the  arguer 
must  next  amass  the  evidence,  which  has  been  classified,  in 
support  of  each  of  the  main  issues. 

6.  Every  statement  in  the  proof  must  read  as  a  reason  for  the 
statement  to  which  it  is  subordinate. 
In  the  same  way  in  which  the  main  issues  must  read  as 
reasons  for  the  truth  of  the  proposition,  every  statement  in 
the  proof,  down  to  the  smallest  subdivision,  must  read  as  a 
reason  for  the  statement  of  the  next  higher  order.  There 
must  be  no  break  in  this  firm  logical  structure.  A  chain  is 
only  as  strong  as  its  weakest  link.    If  any  break  or  weakness 


86  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

shows  in  the  chain  of  argument,  reaching  from  the  detailed 
facts  up  to  the  proposition  itself,  the  whole  argument  must  be 
discarded  and  a  new  one  built  in  its  place.  To  illustrate  this 
rule  clearly,  let  us  take  a  section  from  the  proof  of  the  follow- 
ing proposition: 

Resolved,  that  all  combinations  of  capital  intended  to 
monopolize  industries  should  be  prohibited  by  the  Federal 
Government. 

INTRODUCTION 

(Omitted) 

PROOF 

I.  Combinations  of  capital  are  unnecessary,  for 

A.  The  concentration  of  capital  is  possible  without  them,  for 

1.  Many  individuals  and  partnerships  have  enough  capital 

to  produce  commodities  in  the  most  economical  units. 

2.  Trades  are  sufi&ciently  large  to  admit  many  great  com- 

petitors. 

B.  Combinations  of  capital  are  not  necessary  to  resist  labor 

organizations,  for 

1.  Labor  unions  do  not  have  a  complete  monopoly  of  labor, 

for 
a.  Strikes  are  often  a  failure,  for 

(i)  (Here  cite  specific  instances  from  your  personal 
knowledge  in  which  strikes  have  failed.) 

2.  Associations  for  the  purpose  of  resisting  labor  unions 

are  possible  without  combinations  of  capital. 
n.  Combinations  of  capital  are  a  social  evil,  for 

A.  They  encourage  gambling  and  speculation,  for 

1.  They  practice  "watering  stock,"  for 

a.    (Cite  a  number  of  specific  instances.) 

2.  They  inflate  or  depress  the  value  of  stocks  at  will. 

B.  They  concentrate  wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men,  for 

1.  John  D.  Rockefeller  gained  his  immense  wealth  from 

the  Standard  Oil  monopoly. 

2.  (Cite  several  other  specific  examples  like  the  above.) 

C.  They  discourage  individual  enterprise,  for 

1.  Independent  producers  are  driven  out  of  business. 

2.  An  individual  cannot  build  up  a  business  for  himself. 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  87 

in.  Combinations  of  capital  are  an  economic  evil,  for 

A.  They  limit  natural  production. 

B.  They  destroy  competition,  for 

1.  They  absorb  large  producers. 

2.  They  crush  small  producers. 

C.  They  raise  prices,  for 

I.  They  gain  control  of  the  market  for  this  purpose. 
IV.  The  prohibition  of  combinations  of  capital  by  the  Federal 
Government  is  practicable,  for 
A.  The  power  is  given  to  the  Federal  Government  by  the  Con- 
stitution, for 

1.  Congress  is  given  power  to  regulate  interstate  commerce, 

for 
a.  Art.  I,  Sec.  8  grants  this  power. 

2.  The  United  States  courts  have  jurisdiction  over  these 

matters,  for 
a.  Art.  I,  Sec.  8  confers  this  power  upon  them. 

In  the  above  section  taken  from  a  completed  brief  enough 
evidence  is  introduced  to  show  clearly  the  relation  which 
must  exist  betw^een  each  statement.  Numbers  I,  II,  III, 
and  IV  indicate  the  main  issues.  Under  I,  A  and  B  read  as 
reasons  for  the  truth  of  I.  Under  A,  i  and  2  read  as  reasons 
for  the  truth  of  A  and  so  on  throughout  the  brief.  Each 
statement  is  connected  with  the  preceding  statement,  to 
which  it  is  subordinate,  by  means  of  the  conjunction  "for." 
These  statements  must  make  complete  sense  and  show  their 
logical  relation  when  connected  by  this  conjunction:  as  in 
II.     Combinations  of  capital  are  a  social  evil,  for 

A.  They  encourage  gambhng  and  speculation. 

The  rule  stated  at  the  beginning  of  this  section  is  one  of 
the  most  important  guides  to  correct  brief  making  and  every 
part  of  the  proof  should  be  thoroughly  tested  by  reference 
to  it. 

7.  Statements  introducing  refutation   must  show  clearly   the 
argument  to  be  refuted. 
Refutation  may  be  introduced  at  any  point  in  the  brief 


88  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

where  objections  arise  in  connection  with  the  constructive 
argument.  It  should  always  be  placed  in  its  logical  position, 
which  is  under  the  argument  to  which  the  objection  is  made. 
Only  the  strong  objections  which  appear  to  be  obvious  hin- 
drances to  logical  progress  should  be  considered.  Any  stub- 
born objections  which  need  to  be  cleared  away  before  the 
argument  can  proceed  with  safety  should  be  introduced.  The 
argument  to  be  refuted  should  be  clearly  stated,  and  the 
refutation  should  be  set  forth  in  the  same  way  and  subject 
to  the  same  rules  as  the  other  parts  of  the  brief. 

An  example  of  the  proper  introduction  of  refutation  in  a 
constructive  argument  is  shown  in  the  speech  of  Roscoe 
Conkhng  delivered  at  the  Republican  Convention  in  Chicago 
in  1880,  in  which  he  nominated  Ulysses  S.  Grant  for  President 
of  the  United  States.  The  chief  objection  to  Grant's  candi- 
dacy was  that  he  had  already  served  two  terms  as  President. 
The  precedent,  set  by  Washington,  that  no  man  should  serve 
more  than  two  terms  as  President,  had  always  been  followed 
and  had  become  one  of  the  well  established  political  customs 
of  the  country.  Here  was  certainly  a  strong  objection  to  the 
constructive  argument  of  the  speaker.  Therefore  the  refuta- 
tion is  introduced  where  the  speaker  attempts  to  show  that 
Grant's  character  as  a  man  and  liis  great  services  to  his 
country  entitle  him  to  the  presidency.  In  brief  form  a  state- 
ment of  the  refutation  would  be  as  follows: 

A.  Refutation.  The  argument  that  Grant  should  not  be 
nominated  because  he  has  already  served  two  terms  as 
President  is  unsound,  for 

I.  It  is  absurd  to  say  that  because  we  have  tried  Grant 
twice  and  foimd  him  faithful  we  ought  not  to  trust 
him  again. 

Refutation  should  always  be  introduced  in  the  manner 
which  the  above  illustration  indicates.  First  the  series  of 
symbols  under  which  it  should  come  should  be  determined; 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  89 

then  the  word  Refutation  should  be  placed  opposite  that 
symbol,  followed  by  the  formal  statement  that  "The  argu- 
ment that  ...  is  unsound,  for."  For  a  further  illustra- 
tion of  the  manner  in  which  refutation  ought  to  appear 
the  student  should  consult  the  completed  brief  at  the  end 
of  this  chapter. 

8.  The  conclusion  should  he  a  summary  of  the  main  arguments 

just  as  they  stand  in  the  proof  of  the  brief,  and  should 

close  with  an  affirmation  or  denial  of  the  proposition  in 

the  exact  words  in  which  it  is  phrased. 

A  conclusion  must  be  forcible  and  to  the  point.    It  should 

review  the  main  issues  and  show  at  a  glance  their  relation  to 

the  proposition.     The  conclusion  to  the  brief  given  at  the 

end  of  this  chapter  is  a  good  example  of  the  form  in  which  a 

conclusion  should  be  stated. 

SUMMARY   OF  THE  RULES  FOR  CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF 

1.  A  brief  should  be  constructed  in  three  parts:  Introduction, 

Proof,  and  Conclusion. 

2.  Each  statement  in  a  brief  should  be  a  single  complete  sen- 

tence. 

3.  The  relation  which  the  different  statements  in  a  brief  bear  to 

each  other  should  be  indicated  by  symbols  and  indenta- 
tions. 

4.  The  introduction  should  contain  the  main  issues  together 

with  a  brief  statement  of  the  process  of  analysis  by  which 
they  were  found. 

5.  The  main  statements  of  the  proof  should  correspond  to  the 

main  issues  set  forth  in  the  introduction  and  should  read  as 
reasons  for  the  truth  of  the  proposition. 

6.  Every  statement  in  the  proof  must  read  as  a  reason  for  the 

statement  to  which  it  is  subordinate. 

7.  Statements  introducing  refutation  must  show  clearly  the 

argument  to  be  refuted. 

8.  The  conclusion  should  be  a  summary  of  the  main  arguments 

iust  as  they  stand  in  the  proof  of  the  brief,  and  should 


90  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

close  with  an  affirmation  or  denial  of  the  proposition  in  the 
exact  words  in  which  it  is  phrased. 


The  following  brief  written  by  a  student  taking  his  first 
course  in  argumentation  shows  clearly  the  application  of  all 
the  above  rules.  It  is  not  given  as  an  example  of  a  perfect 
brief  on  the  proposition  stated  but  it  furnishes  proper  sug- 
gestions to  the  person  whose  experience  in  drawing  briefs 
is  not  extensive.  In  studying  this  brief  the  student  should 
observe  the  relation  between  the  statements  under  each  main 
topic,  the  method  of  building  up  the  structure  of  the  brief 
so  that  the  relation  of  the  various  parts  to  the  proposition  is 
clear,  and  the  fact  that  in  each  case  every  statement  rests 
upon  a  sound  foundation.  The  citation  of  good  authority 
and  the  reliable  source  from  which  it  was  obtained  are  given 
wherever  an  authority  is  required.  The  brief  may  be  criti- 
cised on  the  ground  that  too  much  reliance  is  placed  upon 
one  source  of  evidence.  As  suggested  in  the  chapter  on  Evi- 
dence the  exact  reference  to  authority  should  always  be  given 
in  order  that  its  value  may  lend  weight  to  the  argiunent. 
Furthermore,  the  student  is  thus  enabled  to  refer  again  to 
his  source  of  evidence  for  further  information  in  case  it  be- 
comes necessary. 

In  conclusion,  the  student  must  not  forget  that  these  rules 
should  be  thoroughly  mastered  and  that  a  conscious  applica- 
tion of  them  must  be  made  in  the  actual  practice  of  brief- 
drawing.  It  is  only  by  this  means  that  they  can  be  made  a 
part  of  the  argumentative  equipment.  After  the  brief  is 
drawn  it  should  be  carefully  examined  and  tested  by  the 
above  rules.  If  certain  parts  evince  weakness,  these  should 
be  strengthened  by  rearrangement,  or  by  supplying  more  and 
stronger  evidence.  The  student  may  be  compelled  to  return 
again  and  again  to  his  source  of  evidence  in  order  to  find 
material  of  which  he  has  need.    If  the  steps  preceding  the 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  91 

construction  of  the  brief  have  been  carefully  attended  to,  he 
will  find  himself  so  familiar  with  the  subject-matter  of  the 
proposition  that  such  work  will  be  undertaken  with  the  de- 
light and  interest  which  the  keen  investigator  feels  when  he 
is  close  on  the  trail  of  matter  which  will  prove  his  conclusions. 

AFFIRMATIVE  BRIEF 

Proposition:  Resolved,  that  the  Federal  Government  should 
levy  a  progressive  income  tax. 

introduction 

I.  Recently  the  question  of  an  income  tax  has  aroused  great 
interest. 

A.  An  amendment  to  the  constitution  has  been  proposed  re- 

cently which  will  provide  for  this  tax. 

B.  The  proposed  amendment  has  caused  the  matter  to  be 

considered  carefully  by  the  public. 

C.  Many  eminent  men  have  given  opinions  regarding  the  ad- 

visability of  adopting  the  proposed  tax. 

II.  The  following  definition  is  adopted, 

The  progressive  income  tax  is  simply  a  tax  levied  upon 
the  income  of  an  individual,  the  rate  of  tax  increasing 
as  the  amount  of  the  income  of  the  individual  increases. 

III.  The  contentions  of  the  affirmative  and  the  negative  are  as 
follows:  [Um  /{H}j> 

A   Those    who     advocate    the  D  Those  who  oppose  the  adop- 

adoption  of  this  income  tax  sup-  tion  of  this  income  tax  support 

port  the  following  contentions:  the  following  contentions: 

A.  The  income  tax  is  neces-  A.  The   income   tax   is   not 

sary.  necessary. 

B.  The  income  tax  is  practi-  B.  The  income  tax  is  imprac- 

cable.  ticable. 

C.  The  income  tax  is  just.  C.  The  income  tax  is  unjust. 

IV.  Through  this  clash  of  opinions  we  reach  the  following  issues: 

A.  Is  the  income  tax  necessary? 

B.  Is  the  income  tax  practicable? 

C.  Is  the  income  tax  just? 


92  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

PROOF 

I.  The  progressive  income  tax  is  necessary,  for 

A.  It  is  necessary  in  meeting  national  exigencies,  for 

1.  In  case  of  war  the  customs  duties  would  cease  or  be  im- 

paired and  the  government  would  be  without  another 
source  from  which  to  draw  revenue  were  not  the 
income  tax  available.  (Norris  Brown,  U.  S.  Senator 
from  Neb.  in  Outlook,  94:  217.) 

2.  Governor  Hughes  of  New  York  beheves  this  power  (that 

of  levying  the  income  tax)  should  be  held  by  the 
Federal  Government  so  as  to  equip  it  with  the  means 
of  meeting  national  exigencies.     {Outlook,  94:  no.) 

3.  Refutation.    The  argument  that  the  income  tax  is  not 

necessary  on  the  grounds  that  other  taxes  can  be  made 
to  cover  all  necessities  is  unsound,  for 
a.  In  case  of  war  with  a  great  commercial  nation  when 
the  country  would  be  in  the  greatest  need  of  rev- 
enues, the  collection  of  imposts  would  cease  or  be 
materially  diminished.  (Justice  Harlan  of  the  U.  S. 
Supreme  Court  in  his  dissenting  opinion  in  the 
PoUock  Case.    Outlook,  94:217.) 

II.  The  progressive  income  tax  is  practicable,  for 
A.  Experience  shows  it  to  be  practicable,  for 

1.  During  the  great  Civil  War  millions  of  dollars  were  col- 

lected from  this  source  when  the  government  was  in 
need.     (Norris  Brown  in  Outlook,  94:216.) 

2.  It  has  proved  practicable  in  England  and  Italy. 
"Income  taxation  gains  in  economy  and  productiveness 

and  wins  increasing  approbation  as  the  years  go  by." 
(Professor  Ely,  Professor  of  Economics  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Wisconsin,  in  Outlines  of  Economics,  p.  635.) 

III.  The  progressive  income  tax  is  just,  for 

A.  The  tax  bears  upon  the  individual  according  to  his  ability 

to  pay, for 
I.  It  tends  to  relieve  the  poor  from  taxation  and  place  it 
upon  the  rich  who  are  able  to  bear  it.    (Philip  S.  Post 
in  Outlook,  85:504.) 

B.  It  makes  each  individual  bear  his  share  of  taxation,  for 
I.  Income  is  as  good,  and  perhaps  better  than  any  other 

single  measure  of  ability  to  pay  and  the  tax  is  in  ac- 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF  93 

cordance  with  this  idea.  (Professor  Ely  in  Outlines  of 
Econotnics,  p.  635.) 
2.  The  income  tax  reaches  certain  members  of  the  profes- 
sional class  who  under  existing  laws  largely  escape 
taxation  through  lack  of  tangible  property.  (Philip 
S.  Post  in  Outlook,  85:594.) 

CONCLUSION 

I.  Since  the  income  tax  is^necessary  in  meeting  national  exi- 
gencies where  other  revenues  fail ; 

II.  Since  experience  shows  that  the  income  tax  is  practicable; 

III.  Since  the  progressive  income  tax  is  just  because  it  bears 
upon  the  individual  according  to  his  ability  to  pay; 

Therefore,  the  Federal  Government  should  levy  a  progressive 
income  tax. 

EXERCISES  IN  CONSTRUCTING  THE  BRIEF 

1.  Let  each  student  select  some  subject  in  which  he  is  interested 
and  follow  the  argumentative  process  up  to  and  including,  the 
construction  of  the  brief. 

2.  Write  out  a  full  and  complete  brief  of  one  of  the  arguments 
given  in  the  appendix. 

3.  After  the  briefs  have  been  written  out  the  instructor  should 
have  the  students  exchange,  and  give  them  an  opportunity  in  class 
to  point  out  the  defects  in  each  other's  work. 

4.  Without  regard  to  order  or  form,  let  the  instructor  dictate  all 
the  statements  in  a  short  brief,  and  let  the  student  reconstruct  a 
correct  brief  out  of  these  statements. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CONSTRUCTING   THE   ARGUMENT 

The  last  step  has  left  us  with  the  completed  brief, — sound, 
logical,  and  comprehensive.  In  some  cases  the  task  ends 
here,  the  brief  being  constructed  for  its  owti  sake  and  left 
to  stand  as  a  cold,  formal,  logical  framework  upholding  the 
truth  of  the  proposition.  In  this  form  it  may  be  laid  by  for 
those  who  are  to  pass  upon  its  vaUdity,  or  the  advisabihty 
of  adopting  or  rejecting  the  proposition  which  it  supports; 
or  the  author  may  explain  its  structure  in  an  extemporaneous 
speech.  More  often,  however,  the  brief  is  but  the  framework 
of  the  argument  which  is  to  be  built  upon  it,  giving  the  whole 
structure  grace  and  strength. 

In  this  final  process  great  care  must  be  taken  to  make 
sure  that  the  naked  framework  is  entirely  covered.  No  rough 
edges  or  angular  corners  should  be  left  protruding  from  the 
finished  product.  The  whole  structure  must  be  made  attrac- 
tive, and  impressive,  just  as  the  steel  framework  of  a  great 
building  is  enveloped  in  solid  walls  of  stone  and  marble  made 
elegant  by  the  sculptor's  art. 

The  distinction  between  conviction  and  persuasion,  which 
was  pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter,  again  enters  into  the 
argumentative  process.  For  purposes  of  discussion  we  may 
assume  that  the  brief  itself  produces  conviction  because  it 
shows  clearly  that  the  proposition  is  right.  But  the  naked 
brief  is  as  cold  and  formal  as  a  proposition  in  geometry. 
Hence  it  is  the  task  of  the  written  or  spoken  argument,  based 
upon  that  brief,  to  arouse  the  emotions  so  that  it  may  move 
the  will  and  thus  end  in  persuasion.    Now,  if  every  individual 

94 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  g$ 

were  a  perfectly  rational  being  the  brief  would  be  all  that 
would  be  necessary  to  arouse  to  action,  because  by  itself  it 
shows  what  is  right  and  what  ought  to  be  done.  But  real 
men  in  everyday  life  are  not  perfectly  rational  beings.  Their 
reasoning  processes  are  influenced  by  environment,  educa- 
tion, prejudices,  and  acquired  habits  of  thought.  The  emo- 
tions of  men,  too,  play  a  large  part  in  shaping  their  conduct. 
Therefore,  a  process  must  be  instituted  in  their  minds  which 
reaches  persuasion  through  their  combined  thoughts  and 
feelings. 

From  the  psychological  standpoint  we  may  divide  this 
process  into  three  stages,  I.,  Attention;  II.,  Interest;  and  III., 
Desire.  From  the  argumentative  standpoint  we  may  divide 
the  process  into  three  parts  corresponding  to  the  three  parts 
of  the  brief,  viz.,  I.,  Introduction;  II.,  Proof;  and  III.,  Con- 
clusion. Now  it  will  be  seen  that  the  psychological  process 
bears  a  logical  relation  to  the  argumentative  process,  and 
that  this  relation  is  one  of  cause  and  effect.  The  end  of  all 
argument  is  action.  If  the  argument  is  successful  it  creates 
in  their  order  the  mental  and  emotional  conditions  of  atten- 
tion, interest,  and  desire.  That  is,  the  introduction,  proof, 
and  conclusion  of  the  argument  result  in  the  attention,  in- 
terest, and  desire  of  the  individual  mind.  These  processes 
begin  at  the  same  point,  since  the  introduction  secures  the 
attention  of  the  reader  or  hearer;  they  proceed  along  the 
argumentative  road  together,  since  the  proof  must  maintain 
the  active  interest  of  the  reader  or  hearer;  and  they  end  at 
the  same  point,  because  the  conclusion,  if  successful,  leaves 
the  mind  with  a  desire  for  action.  Briefly  stated,  the  intro- 
duction arouses  the  attention;  the  proof  maintains  the  in- 
terest; and  the  conclusion  creates  the  desire. 

I.  Attention — aroused  by  the  introduction. 

The  first  duty  of  a  written  argmnent  is  to  get  itself  read; 


96  ARGUMENTATION  AND    DEBATE 

the  first  duty  of  an  oral  argument  is  to  get  itself  heard;  there- 
fore the  argument  must  attract  the  attention  of  the  reader 
or  hstener  in  the  beginning  or  introduction  and  must  hold 
his  attention  throughout  the  proof.  If  attention  is  not  se- 
cured at  the  beginning  of  the  argument  it  is  seldom  secured 
at  all,  for  the  reader  will  throw  the  uninteresting  argument 
aside  in  disgust,  while  the  Hstener  will  allow  his  thoughts  to 
wander  to  other  subjects.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  the  neces- 
sity for  arousing  the  attention  by  means  of  the  introduction 
is  very  great. 

In  order  that  we  may  clearly  apprehend  the  relation  which 
should  exist  between  the  introduction  and  attention  let  us 
consider,  i.  The  kinds  of  attention,  and  2.  The  methods  of 
securing  proper  attention  by  means  of  the  introduction. 

I.  Kinds  of  attention. 

A.  Natural  attention. 

Natural  attention  requires  no  effort  of  the  will  to  bring 
the  mind  to  bear  upon  the  subject  in  hand.  The  human  mind, 
when  not  engaged  on  some  definite  object,  attends  in  an 
effortless  way  to  practically  every  marked  change  in  the 
circumstances  with  which  it  is  surrounded.  To  things  that 
meet  our  approval  we  give  our  attention  willingly,  but  if  we 
are  displeased  or  bored  by  any  happening  we  give  our  atten- 
tion unwillingly.  Therefore  the  object  of  the  introduction 
is  to  please  in  order  that  attention  may  be  given  willingly. 

When  a  speaker  walks  out  on  a  platform  and  faces  the 
audience  he  at  once  attracts  the  spontaneous  attention  of 
practically  everybody  in  that  audience.  This  much  is  easy. 
The  problem  that  now  confronts  the  speaker  is  to  begin  his 
speech  by  saying  something  which  will  turn  this  spontaneous 
attention  into  fixed  attention.  By  fixed  attention  is  meant 
such  attention  as  willingly  follows  the  train  of  thought  which 
the  speaker  has  to  present.    If  the  introduction  is  properly 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  97 

prepared  this  fixed  attention  will  be  the  result,  but  if  the 
introduction  is  not  properly  prepared  the  natural  attention 
of  the  audience  quickly  degenerates  into  what  we  may  term 
Assumed  Attention. 

B.  Assumed  attention. 

This  kind  of  attention  is  not  given  willingly,  but  is  assumed 
by  the  audience  merely  because  it  happens  that  the  speaker 
has  placed  himself  on  the  platform  and  there  is  nothing  left 
for  the  audience  to  do  but  to  listen  to  him.  Now  this  assumed 
attention  on  the  part  of  the  listeners  may  pass  through  several 
degrees  of  intensity,  depending  upon  the  kind  of  audience 
and  the  degree  of  the  lack  of  skill  with  which  the  speaker 
proceeds.  At  first  the  speaker  is  treated  to  the  ordinary 
manner  of  any  audience  not  especially  interested  in  what  is 
being  said.  This  attitude  quickly  degenerates  into  indiffer- 
ence, a  point  at  which  the  audience  does  not  care  what  the 
speaker  says  or  whether  he  says  anything.  Such  a  condition 
as  this  often  continues  throughout  an  entire  speech,  and  the 
sooner  the  speaker  realizes  that  fact  and  brings  his  argument 
to  an  end  the  better.  The  next  stage  of  assumed  attention 
is  that  of  abstraction.  At  this  stage  the  speaker  does  not 
even  receive  the  indifferent  attention  of  the  hsteners.  The 
mind  of  each  indi\ddual  before  him  wanders  off  to  some  sub- 
ject in  which  he  is  interested  personally  and  the  speaker  might 
just  as  well  be  talking  to  empty  seats.  Usually  this  is  the 
least  desirable  stage  of  assumed  attention.  Under  some 
conditions,  however,  it  is  possible  to  reach  a  still  less  de- 
sirable stage,  which  we  may  call,  for  the  purpose  of  making 
an  exhaustive  division  of  this  subject,  incivility.  At  this 
stage  the  indi\dduals  of  the  audience  manifest  their  dis- 
pleasure by  talking  among  themselves,  and  making  uncom- 
plimentary remarks  about  the  speaker. 

The  above  discussion  will  serve  to  make  clear  the 
kind  of  attention  the  speaker  must  attempt  to  create  by 


98  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

means  of  his  introduction.  We  shall  now  consider  some  of 
the  methods  by  which  the  proper  kind  of  attention  may  be 
secured. 

2.  Methods  of  securing  proper  attention. 

A .  Immediate  statement  of  purpose. 

One  of  the  most  effective  methods  of  securing  the  natural 
attention  of  the  audience  is  by  an  immediate  statement  of 
the  purpose  of  the  discourse.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in 
the  preparation  of  the  brief  the  student  was  cautioned  against 
the  evils  of  a  long  introduction.  He  will  also  recall  that  the 
introduction  was  to  contain  only  the  main  issues  and  the 
essential  steps  in  the  analysis  by  wliich  they  were  reached. 
This  same  brevity  should  characterize  the  introduction  to  the 
argument.  The  audience  is  naturally  interested  in  what  the 
speaker  believes  and  the  reasons  for  his  arguing  in  favor  of 
or  against  the  proposition.  Therefore  he  may  gain  the  fixed 
attention  by  stating  at  once  just  what  he  purposes  to  do. 
An  extreme  form  of  this  kind  of  introduction  would  be  as 
follows : 

"There  are  two  reasons  why  we  maintain  that  the  Federal 
Government  should  levy  a  progressive  inheritance  tax;  first, 
because  the  national  government  needs  it  as  a  source  of  reve- 
nue; and  second,  because  it  will  remedy  the  evils  resulting 
from  'swollen'  fortunes. 

"  The  Federal  Government  needs  this  tax  as  a  source  of 
revenue  because,  etc." 

This  introduction  is  an  immediate  statement  of  the  purpose 
of  the  argument  and  will  secure  the  attention  of  either  reader 
or  hearer. 

In  addressing  an  audience  there  are  some  cases  in  which 
just  such  an  introduction  should  be  used;  for  example,  when 
previous  speakers  have  dwelt  upon  the  analysis  of  the  ques- 
tion, or  have  given  full  dissertations  on  the  origin  or  history 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  99 

of  the  subject,  or  lengthy  definitions  of  terms  and  explana- 
tions of  processes  of  reasoning.  Again,  such  an  introduction 
may  be  used  when  the  time  limit  is  very  short  or  where  the 
audience  is  presumed  to  be  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
subject  under  discussion.  Lincoln  uses  this  method  in  intro- 
ducing his  discussion  on  the  necessity  of  a  settlement  of  the 
slavery  struggle,  as  the  following  introduction  to  his  Spring- 
field speech  will  show: 

"If  we  could  first  know  where  we  are,  and  whither  we  are 
tending,  we  could  better  judge  what  to  do  and  how  to  do  it. 
We  are  now  far  in  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  initiated 
with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an 
end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  that 
policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  con- 
stantly been  augmented.  In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease 
until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached  and  passed.  'A  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I  beheve  this  govern- 
ment cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and  half  free. 
I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved;  I  do  not  expect 
the  house  to  fall;  but  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the 
opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and 
place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it 
is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will 
push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the 
states,  old  as  well  as  new.  North  as  well  as  South." 

In  this  introduction  it  is  seen  that  Lincoln  comes  at  once 
to  the  point:  "I  believe  this  government  cannot  endure 
permanently  half  slave  and  half  free."  He  makes  his  intro- 
duction complete  by  repeating  this  idea  so  that  no  one  can 
fail  to  understand  the  point  he  is  making.  The  two  sen- 
tences which  precede  his  statement  and  the  three  sentences 
which  follow  it  state  the  same  idea  in  different  forms.  In 
an  introduction  the  speaker  must  not  only  make  his  position 


loo  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

so  plain  that  it  can  be  understood,  but  he  must  make  it  so 
plain  that  it  cannot  be  misunderstood.  This  is  what  Lincoln 
does  in  the  introduction  to  his  Springfield  speech  and  it  is 
what  must  be  done  in  every  effective  speech  of  this  character. 

The  introduction  quoted  above  touches  lightly  upon  the 
origin  and  history  of  the  question  with  the  simple  statement: 
"We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  ini- 
tiated with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  put- 
ting an  end  to  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of 
that  policy,  that  agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has 
been  constantly  augmented."  More  extended  statements 
of  the  history  here  alluded  to  are  given  further  on  in  the  ar- 
gument at  such  places  as  they  are  needed.  Here  in  the 
Introduction  merely  the  significant  results  of  origin  and 
history  are  stated  in  the  briefest  possible  form.  This  method 
of  stating  the  introduction  well  illustrates  the  application 
of  the  general  principle  that  extensive  treatment  of  facts  of 
origin  and  history  should  not  be  allowed  to  interfere  with 
the  immediate  statement  of  the  purpose  of  the  argument. 

B.  Illustrative  story. 

Sometimes  the  fixed  attention  of  the  audience  or  reader 
may  be  gained  by  the  use  of  an  illustrative  story.  No  speaker 
or  writer  should  attempt  to  use  this  method  of  introduction 
unless  he  is  absolutely  confident  of  his  ability  to  carry  it 
through  successfully.  A  story  must  conform  to  the  following 
rules  before  it  can,  with  safety,  be  adopted  for  the  purpose 
of  an  introduction: 

(i)  The  story  must  be  interesting. 

(2)  The  story  must  be  well  told. 

(3)  The  story  must  be  obviously  connected  with  the  point 

which  the  arguer  wishes  to  bring  out. 

If  the  story  be  of  the  comic  variety,  and  is  to  be  told  orally, 
the  speaker  must  make  sure  that  the  audience  will  laugh 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  loi 

with  him  and  not  at  him.  Nothing  is  more  fatal  to  natural 
attention  than  a  story  which  "falls  flat."  Regarding  the 
aptness  of  the  story  as  illustrating  the  point  which  the  speaker 
wishes  to  make,  it  need  only  be  suggested  that  the  connection 
must  be  obvious.  If  any  explanation  is  required  after  the 
story  is  told  it  usually  serves  to  kill  attention  rather  than 
to  create  it.  The  connection  must  be  so  obvious  that  the 
speaker  is  able  to  lead  his  auditors  skillfully  from  the  story 
directly  to  the  point  at  issue. 

C.  Quotations. 

A  third  method  of  introducing  an  argument  is  by  the  giv- 
ing of  a  familiar  quotation,  or  a  quotation  of  the  opposing 
speaker  or  someone  concerned  in  the  controversy.  Such  a 
quotation  must  be  very  plainly  connected  with  the  subject, 
and  its  bearing  on  the  point  which  the  speaker  wishes  to 
make  must  be  evident.  In  this  respect  the  requirements  of 
an  introductory  story  and  an  introductory  quotation  are 
identical.  An  example  of  an  introduction  in  which  a  quota- 
tion is  used  is  that  of  the  speech  of  Roscoe  Conkling  in  which 
he  urges  the  nomination  of  Ulysses  S.  Grant  for  President. 
This  introduction  begins  as  follows: 

"When  asked  what  state  he  hails  from 
Our  sole  reply  shall  be 
He  comes  from  Appomattox, 
And  its  famous  apple-tree." 

Likewise  a  speech  advocating  the  adoption  of  free  silver  in 
our  monetary  system  began  with 

"There  is  a  tide  in  the  affairs  of  men, 
Which  taken  at  the  flood  leads  on  to  fortune." 

In  some  cases  the  quotation  may  be  used  merely  to  secure 
the  immediate  attention  of  the  audience.  In  such  a  case  it 
must  bear  directly  on  the  circumstances  of  the  occasion,  as 
when  the  third  speaker  in  a  college  contest  took  advantage 


I02  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

of  the  two  preceding  speakers,  who  had  both  forgotten  their 
speeches  and  had  been  compelled  to  retire  from  the  platform, 
by  beginning  his  speech  with  the  quotation, 

"Lord  God  of  Hosts,  be  with  us  yet 
Lest  we  forget,  lest  we  forget." 

The  effort  was  a  decided  success,  if  success  were  to  be 
judged  by  the  amusement  of  the  audience,  but  it  only  pro- 
longed the  time  required  to  get  the  attention  of  the  audience 
fixed  on  the  serious  subject  which  the  speaker  wished  to 
present.  Such  a  quotation  may  attract  attention,  and  if  that 
is  all  that  is  required,  well  and  good;  but  the  usual  require- 
ment is  to  attract  attention  in  such  a  way  that  it  will  be  fixed 
on  the  subject  in  hand.  Therefore  the  temptation  to  attempt 
comedy  should  be  carefully  guarded  against,  and  quotations 
should  be  used  which  will  procure  more  substantial  results. 

Of  the  three  methods  for  securing  proper  attention  herein 
given  the  first  is  by  far  the  most  important  and  the  most 
useful.  The  second  and  third  methods  should  be  attempted 
only  when  the  circumstances  are  most  favorable  as  measured 
by  the  principles  stated  in  this  discussion.  The  student  must 
keep  constantly  in  mind  the  object  to  be  gained  by  the  intro- 
duction, namely, — the  natural  fixed  attention  of  the  audience. 

II.  Interest — maintained  by  the  proof. 

/.  Necessity. 

The  necessity  of  maintaining  the  attention  of  the  reader 
or  hearer  throughout  the  proof  is  obvious.  No  permanent 
results  can  follow  an  argument  which  is  not  fully  compre- 
hended. Even  though  the  closing  paragraphs  arouse  the 
emotions,  and  a  strong  persuasive  appeal  is  made  in  the  con- 
clusion, they  only  result  in  persuasion,  and  we  have  learned 
that  in  an  effective  argument  conviction  and  persuasion  must 
exist  together. 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  103 

2.  Methods  of  maintaining  interest. 

A.  Appropriate  treatment. 

The  task  of  maintaining  the  interest  of  auditors  or  readers 
is  made  much  easier  if  the  writer  will  pause  in  his  preparation 
and  consider  the  appropriateness  of  his  treatment  of  the 
subject.  In  order  to  make  this  treatment  appropriate  three 
factors  must  be  considered:  (i)  The  speaker  or  writer,  (2)  The 
audience  or  reader,  (3)  The  time  or  occasion.  The  argument 
in  order  to  be  effective  must  be  especially  adapted  to  all  of 
these  factors. 

a.  Adaptation  to  speaker  or  writer. 

The  writer  of  an  argument,  whether  the  argument  is  to  be 
written  out  for  the  purpose  of  being  read  or  whether  it  is  to 
be  delivered  in  the  form  of  a  speech,  must  take  into  considera- 
tion his  own  power  and  ability.  With  these  clearly  in  mind 
he  must  present  his  subject  in  a  way  which  seems  natural 
and  spontaneous.  Never  should  an  attempt  be  made  to 
imitate  the  manner  of  any  particular  speaker  or  writer.  Such 
attempts  always  appear  unnatural,  strained,  and  artificial, 
as  in  truth  they  are.  The  keynote  of  adapting  a  speech  to 
the  speaker  is  sincerity.  Sincerity  begets  naturalness.  To 
be  sincere  and  know  that  he  is  in  the  right  leads  the  speaker 
to  treat  his  subject  in  a  manner  which  will  show  forth  the 
best  qualities  of  his  character. 

The  argument  should  manifest  the  utmost  fairness.  It 
should  be  clear  that  the  speaker  or  writer  desires  truth  and 
justice  to  prevail.  When  stating  an  opponent's  position  for 
purposes  of  refutation  the  speaker  or  writer  should  be  sure 
that  his  statements  are  fair  and  reasonable  and  will  bear 
the  inspection  of  unprejudiced  judges.  If  genuine  sincerity 
and  absolute  fairness  are  put  into  an  argument  they  will  go 
far  toward  adapting  it  to  the  personality  of  the  author. 

h.  Adaptation  to  audience  or  reader. 

As  a  basis  for  this  sort  of  adaptation  a  real  sympathy  with 


I04  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

those  to  whom  the  argument  is  to  be  addressed  is  essential. 
In  fact  the  arguer  must  be  able  to  take  their  view  of  the  sub- 
ject. He  must  realize  that  an  argument  which  is  to  be  pre- 
sented to  a  working-man  must  be,  in  a  way,  different  from 
one  which  is  to  be  presented  to  a  banker.  To  be  sure,  the 
essence  of  the  argument  may  be  the  same,  but  when  the  task 
of  developing  the  brief  into  a  finished  product  is  imdertaken, 
these  different  standpoints  must  be  considered. 

Not  only  must  this  adaptation  be  considered  from  the 
standpoint  of  those  engaged  in  different  occupations  in  life, 
but  the  predominating  pohtical,  social,  religious,  and  scholas- 
tic temperament  must  also  be  considered.  Especially  is 
this  true  if  the  beHefs  of  the  audience  or  readers  differ  from 
those  of  the  speaker  or  writer.  Usually  the  speaker  reahzes 
the  importance  of  the  latter  situation  but  very  often  does 
not  know  just  how  to  meet  it.  Here  again  sympathy  is  the 
keynote.  Nothing  should  be  said  which  will  give  offense. 
The  speaker  must  prepare  carefully  each  step  in  his  argument 
so  as  to  lead  the  audience  with  him.  In  the  beginning  a 
common  basis  must  be  found,  then  the  true  attitude  of  the 
arguer  may  be  made  apparent  as  he  proceeds. 

An  instance  of  this  gradual  leading  on  of  the  audience  is 
found  in  "JuHus  Caesar,"  where  Mark  Antony  addresses 
the  citizens  after  the  murder  of  Caesar.  The  statements  of 
"a  plain  blunt  man"  attach  a  much  different  significance  to 
the  "honorable  men"  at  the  close  of  the  argument  from 
that  which  was  given  in  its  beginning.  Had  Antony  reversed 
the  order  of  his  speech  he  would  have  been  deliberately  killed 
instead  of  being  hailed  as  a  leader.  He  adapted  his  argument 
to  his  audience.  He  led  them  along  step  by  step  until  in  the 
end  they  arrived  at  the  inference  which  he  wished  to  establish 
and  then  with  a  fiery  conclusion  he  aroused  in  them  the 
desire  for  action.  Not  once  did  he  lose  their  interest,  because 
his  treatment  of  the  subject-matter  took  into  account  their 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  105 

personal,  financial,  social,  and  political  welfare.  This  classical 
example  illustrates  well  the  maintaining  of  interest  by  that 
method  of  appropriate  treatment  which  adapts  the  argument 
to  the  audience. 

An  example  of  a  speaker  addressing  an  audience  of  an  en- 
tirely different  class  from  that  to  which  he  himself  belongs 
is  that  of  Booker  T.  Washington  on  the  occasion  of  the  open- 
ing of  the  Atlanta  Exposition.  Mr.  Washington  had  great 
difficulty  in  determining  how  he  should  take  up  his  subject. 
But  he  was  wise  enough  to  apply  the  principle  of  sympathy 
with  his  audience,  and  the  result  was  an  address  which  stands 
as  a  monument  to  his  wisdom.  He,  himself,  says  that:  "No 
two  audiences  are  exactly  alike.  It  is  my  aim  to  reach  and 
talk  to  the  heart  of  each  individual  audience,  taking  it  into 
my  confidence  much  as  I  would  a  person.  When  I  am  speak- 
ing to  an  audience  I  care  little  for  how  what  I  am  saying  is 
going  to  sound  in  the  newspapers,  or  to  another  audience, 
or  to  an  individual.  At  the  time,  the  audience  before  me 
absorbs  all  my  sympathy,  thought,  and  energy."  Again  he 
says,  referring  to  the  occasion  above  mentioned,  "I  was  deter- 
mined to  say  nothing  that  I  did  not  feel  from  the  bottom  of 
my  heart  to  be  true  and  right." 

Lincoln  had  some  very  strong  misgivings  about  the  recep- 
tion of  his  Cooper  Institute  speech.  It  is  said  that  he  felt 
"miseries  of  embarrassment  from  his  sense  of  the  unaccus- 
tomed conditions,  the  critical  and  refined  audience,  his  own 
ungainHness,  and  his  ill-fitting  and  wrinkled  clothes."  But 
after  he  began  to  speak  his  embarrassment  disappeared.  It 
was  merged  into  sympathy  with  his  audience,  the  people  of 
New  York  City,  for  whom  he  had  especially  prepared  the 
address.  How  well  he  succeeded  in  his  adaptation  we  all 
know,  and  Nicolay  and  Hay  say  in  their  account: 

"Yet,  such  was  the  apt  choice  of  words,  the  easy  precision 
of  sentences,  the  simple  strength  of  propositions,  the  fairness 


lo6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

of  every  point  he  assumed,  and  the  force  of  every  conclusion 
he  drew  that  his  Hsteners  followed  him  with  the  interest  and 
delight  a  child  feels  in  its  easy  mastery  of  a  plain  sum  in 
arithmetic." 

Every  speech  must  be  so  adapted  to  the  audience  that  it 
will  maintain  just  this  kind  of  interest  from  the  beginning 
to  the  close. 

c.  Adaptation  to  time  or  occasion. 

The  final  requirement  of  appropriate  treatment  is  that  the 
argument  be  suited  to  the  time  or  occasion.  Every  kind  of 
occasion  has  an  individuahty  born  of  its  environment.  The 
political  argument  of  a  candidate  for  ofi&ce  will  have  a  some- 
what different  setting  from  the  same  argument  delivered  in 
the  halls  of  congress.  A  brief  for  an  argimient  might  well 
serve  for  both  occasions,  but  when  that  argument  is  written 
out  the  time  or  occasion  of  its  presentation  must  be  consid- 
ered. The  arguer  can  almost  always  foresee  the  circumstances 
of  the  particular  occasion  or  time  of  presentation  and  thus 
adapt  his  argument  to  them.  Formal  college  or  intercolle- 
giate debates  before  competent  judges  and  with  a  definite 
limit  as  to  the  length  of  the  speech  would  demand  that  the 
brief  be  developed  in  the  most  terse  and  direct  manner  pos- 
sible; whereas  the  same  argument  to  be  delivered  before  a 
Political  Science  Club,  with  no  judges  and  no  time  hmit, 
might  be  developed  much  more  fully  and  adapted  to  the 
occasion  in  a  widely  different  manner.  In  conclusion,  we 
must  not  forget  that  an  argument  intended  to  be  read  must 
be  adapted  to  the  writer,  the  reader  and  the  time;  whereas, 
an  argument  written  for  oral  delivery  must  be  adapted  to 
the  speaker,  the  audience,  and  the  occasion. 

B,  Logical  structure. 

The  very  fact  that  a  discourse  is  to  take  the  form  of  an 
argument  causes  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  to  look  for 
logical  structure  and  clear  reasoning.    This  expectation  must 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  107 

not  be  ignored.  The  argument  must  not  only  be  logical,  but 
it  must  appear  logical.  This  logical  structure  can  be  clearly- 
set  forth  when  the  argument  is  written  out,  by  means  of 
frequent  statements  of  the  divisions  of  the  argument  and 
their  relation  to  each  other,  summaries,  and  transition  sen- 
tences and  paragraphs.  The  arguer  should  first  tell  what  he 
has  to  prove,  then  show  all  along  that  he  is  proving  it,  and 
finally  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  he  has  proved  it.  If 
this  is  well  done  the  logical  structure  of  the  argument  is 
made  obvious. 

The  argument  must  also  show  logical  progress.  We  have 
already  seen  the  necessity  of  making  the  introduction  as 
brief  as  is  consistent  with  the  other  requirements.  This 
requirement  regarding  brevity  must  be  observed  throughout 
the  development  of  the  brief.  Every  statement  must  be 
developed  to  such  an  extent  as  to  bring  out  clearly  the  cen- 
tral thought,  but  when  this  has  been  done  the  writer  must 
pass  at  once  to  the  next  point,  thus  showing  that  some  real 
progress  is  being  made.  An  argument  which  moves  slowly 
tires  the  reader  or  hearer.  Therefore  the  temptation  to  elab- 
orate a  point  in  the  brief  upon  which  the  writer  has  a  large 
amount  of  information  should  be  carefully  guarded  against. 
Each  argument  must  be  stated  clearly,  with  supporting  evi- 
dence to  the  point,  and  the  proof  furnished  by  the  evidence 
plainly  shown.  This  logical  progress  will  aid  greatly  in 
maintaining  interest  in  the  proof  of  the  argument. 

C.  Style. 

Style  is  the  manner  of  selecting  and  arranging  words,  sen- 
tences, and  paragraphs  in  such  a  way  that  they  will  produce 
an  intended  effect  upon  the  reader  or  hearer.  From  this 
definition  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  style  is  a  very  important 
factor  in  argumentation.  The  argument  is  constructed  with 
the  express  purpose  of  producing  an  intended  effect  upon 
the  reader  or  hearer,  and  style  is  a  necessary  aid.    The  out- 


lo8  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

ward  appearance  of  things  enhances  their  usefulness.  Manu- 
facturers are  on  the  constant  lookout  for  designs  which  are 
really  artistic  and  pleasing  to  the  eye.  It  is  even  claimed  that 
the  appearance  of  food  affects  its  digestion.  Certainly,  there- 
fore, an  argument  ought  to  possess  such  style  that  it  will 
appear  in  the  most  favorable  light. 

Style,  however,  must  not  be  considered  an  external  thing. 
It  is  not  a  trick  by  which  an  argument  may  be  decorated  for 
parade.  Style  is  the  thought  and  the  man  behind  that 
thought.  It  is  the  thought  presented  in  all  its  native  force 
and  completeness;  it  is  the  man  with  all  his  earnestness  and 
sincerity  put  into  his  words.  No  writer  or  speaker  can  obtain 
good  style  by  imitating  that  of  another  person.  It  must 
be  the  natural  expression  of  his  own  personality. 

a.  Elements  of  style. 

(i).  Vocabulary. 

The  selection  of  the  words  in  which  the  argvmient  is  ex- 
pressed is  highly  important.  The  manuscript  should  be 
repeatedly  revised  with  the  object  of  securing  a  clear  and 
forcible  diction.  A  general  term  should  not  be  used  where 
a  concrete  term  can  be  employed.  All  unusual  words  should 
be  ehminated  and  replaced  with  words  which  are  famiHar. 

Connotation  may  enter  into  the  diction  of  an  argument 
as  well  as  into  other  forms  of  prose.  There  is  a  fitness  pos- 
sessed by  certain  words  to  express  certain  shades  of  meaning 
which  must  be  utilized  by  the  arguer.  This  regard  for  the 
connotative  significance  of  words  should  guide  in  their  selec- 
tion throughout  the  argument. 

Significant  expressions  and  combinations  of  words  should 
also  be  brought  in  for  the  purpose  of  heightening  the  effect 
of  the  argument.  These  combinations  may  be  such  as  are 
used  for  political  campaign  watchwords.  Greater  force 
may  be  given  to  them  by  repetition,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
sturdy  Roman  orator  who  always  closed  his  speech  with  the 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  109 

words  "Carthage  must  be  destroyed."  Alliteration  may  also 
be  employed  with  good  effect,  as  in  the  case  of  the  college 
debater  who,  when  opposing  a  further  increase  in  our  navy, 
designated  a  battleship  as  "A  devilish  device  designed  to 
murder  men."  Such  suggestions  bring  ideas  to  the  mind 
with  so  much  vividness  that  the  impression  which  they  make 
is  not  easily  effaced. 

(2).  Sentences. 

In  framing  the  sentences  of  an  argument  the  writer  must 
consider  whether  it  is  designed  for  oral  dehvery  or  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  being  read.  If  the  latter,  the  rules  of 
ordinary  composition  furnish  a  sufficient  guide,  but,  if  the 
former  purpose  is  to  be  considered  special  attention  must  be 
given  to  sentence-structure.  The  writer  should  test  each 
sentence  as  it  is  written  by  actually  reading  it  aloud  or  by 
building  a  mental  concept  of  the  way  in  wliich  it  will  sound 
when  stated  orally.  The  meaning  must  be  plain,  since  if  the 
hearer  does  not  grasp  it  as  the  sentence  is  spoken  he  cannot 
grasp  it  at  all.  To  aid  in  this  clearness,  long  and  involved 
sentence-structure  should  be  avoided.  Short,  terse  sentences 
should  predominate.  Both  balanced  and  periodic  sentences 
may  be  made  to  contribute  to  the  oratorical  quaHty  which 
an  argument  should  possess,  but  they  must  not  interfere 
with  that  brevity  which  makes  for  clearness.  The  following 
extract  from  the  argument  of  Daniel  Webster  in  the  White 
murder  trial  well  illustrates  the  clearness  which  results  from 
the  use  of  terse  sentences. 

"The  criminal  law  is  not  founded  in  a  principle  of  ven- 
geance. It  does  not  punish  that  it  may  inflict  suffering.  The 
himianity  of  the  law  feels  and  regrets  every  pain  it  causes, 
every  hour  of  restraint  it  imposes,  and  more  deeply  still  every 
Ufe  it  forfeits.  But  it  uses  evil  as  a  means  of  preventing 
greater  evil.  It  seeks  to  deter  from  crime  by  the  example 
of  pimishment.    This  is  its  true,  and  only  true  main  object. 


no  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

It  restrains  the  liberty  of  the  few  offenders,  that  the  many 
who  do  not  offend  may  enjoy  their  Uberty.  It  takes  the  life 
of  a  murderer  that  other  murders  may  not  be  committed." 

(j).  Paragraphs. 

A  paragraph  should  be  devoted  to  each  subdivision  of 
the  argument.  Each  paragraph  must  be  a  complete  unit. 
Its  length  should  vary  with  the  importance  of  the  subdivision 
to  which  it  is  confined.  The  sentence  in  the  brief  which  it 
is  designed  to  elaborate  should  stand  as  the  key  sentence  of 
the  paragraph. 

b.  Qualities  of  style. 

(i).  Clearness. 

The  most  important  quality  of  style  is  clearness.  Clear- 
ness is  a  valuable  aid  to  interest,  for  the  human  mind  delights 
in  lucidity.  The  audience  or  reader  will  seldom  take  the 
trouble  to  figure  out  exactly  what  idea  is  intended  to  be  con- 
veyed. Most  audiences  are  lazy  and  must  be  assisted  to 
think.  The  way  in  which  a  conclusion  is  to  be  reached  must 
be  pointed  out  to  them.  Hence  the  necessity  of  making  plain 
an  argument  which  is  to  be  delivered  orally  is  especially  great. 

Error  can  easily  be  smuggled  into  an  argument  under  cover 
of  confused  language,  but  clearness  shows  forth  the  argument 
in  such  a  light  that  any  mistake  must  be  apparent.  This 
satisfies  the  minds  of  those  addressed,  because  ^hey  can  see 
and  judge  for  themselves.  Moreover,  there  is  a  quality  of 
elegance  coming  from  perfect  clearness  wliich  carries  con- 
viction with  it.  If  clearness  is  lacking,  grave  errors  may  be 
lurking  in  the  obscure  phrasing  of  the  discourse  and  the 
reader  or  hearer  cannot  feel  satisfied  in  his  own  mind.  There- 
fore, for  the  sake  of  the  writer  and  for  the  sake  of  those  to 
whom  the  argument  is  addressed,  clearness  should  be  the 
predominating  quality  of  style. 

It  is  not  amiss  at  this  point  to  quote  in  full  the  famous 
description  of  eloquence  from  Webster's  oration  on  Adams 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  ill 

and  Jefferson.  It  is  not  only  a  description  but  it  is  a  great 
example  of  the  thing  described.  The  student  will  do  well  to 
ponder  over  it  and  try  to  realize  the  full  significance  of  every 
statement. 

"Clearness,  force,  and  earnestness  are  the  quaHries  which 
produce  conviction.  True  eloquence,  indeed,  does  not  con- 
sist in  speech.  It  cannot  be  brought  from  far.  Labor  and 
learning  may  toil  for  it,  but  they  will  toil  in  vain.  Words  and 
phrases  may  be  marshalled  in  every  way,  but  they  cannot 
compass  it.  It  must  exist  in  the  man,  in  the  subject,  and  in 
the  occasion.  Affected  passion,  intense  expression,  and 
pomp  of  declamation,  all  may  aspire  to  it;  they  cannot  reach 
it.  It  comes,  if  it  comes  at  all,  like  the  outbreaking  of  a 
fountain  from  the  earth,  or  the  bursting  forth  of  volcanic 
fires,  with  spontaneous,  original,  native  force.  The  graces 
taught  in  the  schools,  the  costly  ornaments  and  studied 
contrivances  of  speech,  shock  and  disgust  men,  when  their 
own  lives,  and  the  fate  of  their  wives,  their  children,  and  their 
country,  hang  on  the  decision  of  the  hour.  Then  words 
have  lost  their  power,  rhetoric  is  vain,  and  all  elaborate  ora- 
tory contemptible.  Even  genius  itself  then  feels  rebuked 
and  subdued,  as  in  the  presence  of  higher  quahties.  Then 
patriotism  is  eloquent;  then  self-devotion  is  eloquent.  The 
clear  conception  outrunning  the  deductions  of  logic,  the  high 
purpose,  the  firm  resolve,  the  dauntless  spirit,  speaking  on 
the  tongue,  beaming  from  the  eye,  informing  every  feature, 
and  urging  the  whole  man  onward,  right  onward  to  his  ob- 
ject,— this,  this  is  eloquence;  or  rather  it  is  something  greater 
and  higher  than  all  eloquence, — it  is  action,  noble,  sublime, 
godlike  action." 

Simplicity  of  expression  is  an  important  aid  to  clearness. 
No  speaker  should  strive  for  effect  alone.  The  simplest  words 
and  the  simplest  sentences  should  be  chosen.  Fine  writing 
or  high  soimding  language  should  be  avoided.    The  writer 


112  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

should  make  use  of  that  directness  which  characterizes  his 
conversation  when  he  is  in  earnest. 

Concreteness  is  a  most  important  aid  to  clearness,  for 
general  statements  make  httle  impression  upon  the  average 
mind.  To  secure  the  best  effect  concrete  particulars  must 
be  used  to  amplify  and  illustrate  all  general  statements.  This 
not  only  makes  the  meaning  of  the  speaker  more  clear  but 
it  also  gives  a  force  and  vigor  to  the  idea  presented.  In  fact, 
some  writers  have  named  concreteness  as  the  most  important 
aid  to  force.  In  Alden's  Art  of  Debate  a  speaker  during 
the  time  of  the  Chicago  strike  is  quoted  as  having  moved  his 
hearers  to  enthusiasm  by  declaring:  "If  necessary,  every 
regiment  in  the  United  States  army  must  be  called  out,  that 
the  letter  dropped  by  the  girl  Jennie,  at  some  country  post- 
office  back  in  Maine,  may  go  on  its  way  to  her  lover  in  San 
Francisco,  without  a  finger  being  raised  to  stop  its  passage." 
This  is  concreteness  as  distinguished  from  generality.  How 
much  less  clear  and  less  forcible  would  be  the  general  abstract 
statement  that  "If  necessary,  the  whole  force  of  the  United 
States  army  will  be  called  into  action  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  interference  with  the  mails." 

Instead  of  making  the  general  statement  "There  has  been 
a  constant  improvement  in  the  methods  devised  by  man  for 
killing  his  fellow  men  in  war,"  the  idea  would  be  more  con- 
crete if  expressed  in  the  following  terms:  "Ever  since  Sham- 
gar  slew  the  opposing  army  of  the  Philistines  with  an  ox- 
goad  man  has  been  improving  the  instruments  of  war  until 
today  we  have  the  modern  dreadnought  weighing  thousands 
of  tons  and  costing  millions  of  dollars."  Or,  the  idea  can  be 
presented  in  a  still  more  concrete  manner  by  stating  the  fol- 
lowing facts:  "Ever  since  David,  the  shepherd  boy,  picked  a 
pebble  from  the  brook;  placed  it  in  his  sling;  threw  it  and 
killed  Goliath,  man  has  been  improving  the  method  of  throw- 
ing things  at  his  fellow  men,  in  order  to  kill  them,  until  today 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  I13 

we  have  the  thirteen  inch  gun,  which  throws  a  projectile 
weighing  one  thousand  pounds  a  distance  of  thirteen  miles." 
These  concrete  instances  when  elaborated  become  illustra- 
tions or  illustrative  instances.  In  fact,  the  last  statement 
given  above  might  be  dignified  with  the  name  illustration. 
Lincoln  in  his  Cooper  Institute  speech  aptly  illustrated  the 
attitude  of  the  South  toward  secession  when  he  said:  "But 
you  will  not  abide  the  election  of  a  Republican  President! 
In  that  supposed  event  you  say  you  will  destroy  the  Union! 
and  then,  you  say,  the  crime  of  having  destroyed  it  will  be 
upon  us!  That  is  cool.  A  highwayman  holds  a  pistol  to  my 
ear  and  mutters  through  his  teeth  'Stand  and  deliver  or  I 
shall  kill  you,  and  then  you  will  be  a  murderer.'"  Again 
Lincoln  uses  a  most  clear  and  forcible  illustration  in  his 
Springfield  speech  when  he  presents  the  following  argument 
from  analogy; 

"We  cannot  absolutely  know  that  all  these  adaptations 
are  the  result  of  preconcert.  But  when  we  see  a  lot  of  framed 
timbers,  different  portions  of  which  we  know  have  been 
gotten  out  at  different  times  and  places  and  by  different 
workmen, — Stephen,  Franklin,  Roger,  and  James,  for  in- 
stance,— and  when  we  see  these  timbers  joined  together,  and 
see  they  exactly  make  the  frame  of  a  house  or  a  mill,  all  the 
tenons  and  mortices  exactly  fitting,  and  all  the  lengths  and 
proportions  of  the  different  pieces  exactly  adapted  to  their 
respective  places,  and  not  a  piece  too  many  or  too  few, — not 
omitting  even  scaffolding, — or,  if  a  single  piece  be  lacking, 
we  see  the  place  in  the  frame  exactly  fitted  and  prepared  yet 
to  bring  the  piece  in — in  such  a  case,  we  find  it  impossible  not 
to  believe  that  Stephen  and  Frankhn  and  Roger  and  James 
all  understood  one  another  from  the  beginning,  and  all  worked 
upon  a  common  plan  or  draft  drawn  up  before  the  first  blow 
was  struck." 

Such  concrete  illustrations  as  are  contained  in  the  above 


1 14  ARGUMENT  A  TION  AND  DEB  A  TE 

quotation  should  abound  in  every  argument.  The  homelier 
the  illustration,  the  more  pronounced  the  effect.  It  requires 
no  especial  insight  into  human  nature  to  see  that  such  inci- 
dents as  those  quoted  above  will  hold  the  interest  of  the  au- 
dience or  reader  much  more  effectively  than  cold,  formal, 
generalized  statements.  Therefore,  the  student  should  make 
use  of  concreteness,  and,  in  fact  of  all  rhetorical  devices,  for 
the  purpose  of  making  his  argument  clear  and  interesting. 
Even  narratives  of  some  extended  length  may  be  introduced 
when  they  are  especially  pertinent  to  the  point  at  issue. 

Clearness  is  aided  by  making  plain  in  the  argument  that 
unity  which  exists  in  the  brief.  All  matter  which  does  not 
tend  to  explain  or  prove  the  main  proposition  should  be  ex- 
cluded. It  is  dangerous  for  the  arguer  to  enter  into  lengthy 
explanations,  for  they  may  be  but  digressions  from  the  main 
argument.  It  is  of  course  assumed  that  the  brief  possesses 
unity.  The  temptation  to  include  matter  merely  because  of 
its  interest  is  always  strong,  but  the  student  must  apply  the 
test  of  immediate  relevancy  and  be  guided  by  it.  The  final 
acceptance  of  the  argument  by  the  reader  or  hearer  is  aided  or 
hindered  by  his  impression  of  the  unity  or  solidity  of  its  con- 
struction. The  brief  should  be  strictly  followed  in  order 
that  unity  may  be  apparent. 

Coherence  is  also  an  important  aid  to  clearness.  The  co- 
herence which  exists  in  the  brief  must  be  expressed  in  the 
argument.  The  connective  "for,"  which  is  used  in  the  brief 
to  show  the  relation  subordinate  statements  bear  to  the  main 
statements,  must  be  expanded  in  rhetorical  style  so  as  to 
bring  out  plainly  the  force  of  the  relation  which  it  expresses. 
In  the  effort  to  secure  coherence  the  arguer  should  not  hesi- 
tate to  repeat  the  main  issues  or  even  to  show  how  they  stand 
as  proof  of  the  proposition.  Every  fact  of  evidence  must  be 
made  to  stand  out  distinctly  as  proof  for  some  statement  in 
the  argument.     Otherwise  the  evidence  will  be  mere  dead 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  115 

weight,  loading  down  instead  of  supporting  the  contentions 
of  the  arguer. 

Connective  words,  such  as  "for,"  "because,"  "hence," 
"therefore"  should  abound  throughout  the  proof  for  the 
purpose  of  showing  precisely  what  relation  exists  between  a 
fact  and  a  statement,  or  a  statement  and  a  main  issue,  or  a 
main  issue  and  the  proposition.  Every  fact  of  evidence  must 
be  clearly  connected  with  the  statement  which  it  proves; 
every  statement  supported  by  evidence  must  be  connected 
directly  with  the  main  issue  which  it  proves;  and  every  main 
issue  must  be  connected  directly  with  the  proposition  which 
it  proves.  This  must  be  done  not  by  inference,  but  by  an 
expressed  connection.  The  connection  may  appear  so  ob 
vious  that  it  seems  foolish  to  put  it  in  words,  but  experience 
shows  that  the  connective  must  be  expressed  or  it  will  not  be 
comprehended.  If  the  connections  are  not  expressed  the 
argument  will  appear  incoherent.  Therefore,  transitional 
sentences  must  be  used  frequently.  When  two  or  more 
facts  of  evidence  are  offered  in  support  of  one  statement  the 
words  "First",  "Second",  and  "Third",  or  "Moreover", 
"Again",  "Furthermore"  should  be  used.  At  the  end  of 
the  enumeration  what  all  these  facts  tend  to  show  regarding 
the  proposition  should  be  stated. 

Coherence  is  not  obtained  by  chance.  To  obtain  it  requires 
the  greatest  care  in  the  original  writing  out  of  the  argument. 
A  careful  process  of  revision  must  then  be  instituted  to  make 
sure  that  no  fact  of  evidence  is  left  standing  without  its 
appropriate  relation  to  the  proposition  being  clearly  stated. 
Any  break  in  coherence  may  mean  the  loss  of  part  or  all  of 
the  evidence  offered  in  support  of  a  main  issue. 

One  of  the  classical  examples  of  argument  noteworthy  for 
its  coherence,  and  the  one  most  often  recommended  for  study 
in  connection  with  the  subject  of  coherence,  is  Burke's 
Speech  on  Conciliation.     In   that   part   of    the   argument 


ii6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

which  treats  of  the  American  love  of  freedom,  the  skill  dis- 
played in  making  transition  from  part  to  part,  and  the  gen- 
eral effect  of  coherence  which  results  from  this  treatment  are 
most  conspicuous. 

The  following  extracts  taken  from  a  portion  of  the  argu- 
ment will  illustrate  Burke's  method  of  making  his  discourse 
coherent.    The  dots  indicate  omissions.^ 

"In  the  character  of  the  Americans,  a  love  of  freedom  is 
the  predominating  feature  which  marks  and  distinguishes 
the  whole  .  .  .  this  (results)  from  a  great  variety  of  powerful 
causes.  .  .  .  First,  the  people  of  the  colonies  are  descendants 
of  Englishmen.  .  .  .  Their  governments  are  popular  in  a 
high  degree.  ...  If  anything  were  wanting  to  this  neces- 
sary operation  of  the  form  of  government,  religion  would 
have  given  it  complete  effect.  .  .  .  The  people  are  Protes- 
tants; and  of  the  kind  which  is  most  adverse  to  all  implicit 
submission  of  mind  and  opinion.  .  .  .  (The  Church  of 
England  tends  to  offset  this  influence  in  the  Southern 
colonies) .  There  is,  however,  a  circumstance  attending  these 
colonies,  which  in  my  opinion,  fully  counterbalances  this 
difference.  ...  It  is,  that  in  Virginia  they  have  a  vast 
multitude  of  slaves.  Where  this  is  the  case  in  any  part  of 
the  world,  those  who  are  free  are  by  far  the  more  proud  and 
jealous  of  their  freedom.  .  .  .  Permit  me.  Sir,  to  add 
another  circumstance  in  our  colonies,  which  contributes  no 
mean  part  towards  the  growth  and  effect  of  this  untractable 

1  After  reading  the  selections  here  given  the  student  will  do  well  to 
make  a  study  of  the  speech  itself  and  scrutinize  closely  the  substance 
of  the  parts  which  these  statements  serve  to  connect  as  well  as  the  man- 
ner of  connection.  The  first  sentence  may  be  taken  as  the  main  issue 
which  Burke  intends  to  offer  evidence  to  prove;  then  come  the  sentences 
which  mark  the  connection  of  the  most  important  facts  of  evidence 
offered  in  support  of  the  issue;  and  finally  the  summary  which  again 
calls  attention  to  the  connection  existing  between  these  pieces  of  evi- 
dence and  the  proposition  contained  in  the  first  statement. 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  117 

spirit.  I  mean  their  education.  In  no  country  perhaps  in 
the  world  is  the  law  so  general  a  study.  .  .  .  The  last  cause 
of  this  disobedient  spirit  in  the  colonies  is  hardly  less  power- 
ful than  the  rest,  as  it  is  not  merely  moral,  but  laid  deep  in 
the  natural  constitution  of  things.  Three  thousand  miles  of 
ocean  lie  between  you  and  them.  .  .  .  Then,  Sir,  from 
these  six  capital  sources:  of  descent;  of  form  of  govern- 
ment; of  rehgion  in  the  northern  provinces;  of  manners  in 
the  southern;  of  education;  of  the  remoteness  of  the  situation 
from  the  first  mover  of  government;  from  all  these  causes 
a  fierce  spirit  of  liberty  has  grown  up.  .  .  ." 

These  transition  sentences  seem  to  imply  a  strong  coherent 
argument,  and,  when  taken  in  connection  with  the  context, 
they  form  an  almost  perfect  example  of  argumentative  co- 
herence. 

Usually  the  first  sentence  of  a  paragraph  developing  a 
new  argument  is  the  transition  sentence.  Sometimes  a  more 
extended  transition  becomes  necessary,  in  which  case  more 
than  one  sentence,  or  even  an  entire  paragraph,  may  be 
devoted  to  the  transition  from  one  part  to  another.  All  of 
the  methods  suggested  above  may  be  properly  employed  in 
giving  the  argument  coherence. 

In  this  discussion  of  clearness  many  things  have  been  con- 
sidered which  must  be  taken  into  account  when  reading  the 
discussions  of  Force  and  Elegance.  No  division  of  style  can 
be  absolute  nor  can  a  complete  exposition  of  its  qualities  be 
attempted  without  much  repetition.  The  student  must 
therefore  treat  this  division  of  subject-matter  as  helpful  only 
in  emphasizing  the  qualities  which  his  argumentative  writing 
and  speaking  should  possess. 

(2).  Force. 

We  speak  of  a  "forcible  argument"  with  respect  because 
it  indicates  something  substantial.    Force  must  pervade  any 


Il8  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

writing  or  speaking  which  aims  to  arouse  to  action.  The 
material  must  be  presented  in  an  impressive  manner.  By 
so  doing  we  create  a  keener  interest  and  bring  to  the  minds  of 
our  readers  or  hearers  a  more  vivid  realization  of  the  signifi- 
cance of  our  argument.  Therefore  after  all  the  devices  here- 
tofore considered  have  been  employed  to  make  the  argument 
interesting,  the  finished  product  should  be  considered  with  a 
view  to  determining  whether  it  is  the  most  forcible  piece  of 
work  that  can  be  produced.  Perhaps  some  slight  change 
in  the  way  in  which  these  devices  have  been  employed  will 
give  a  better  effect.  If  so,  the  modification  should  be  care- 
fully attended  to  in  order  that  the  argument  may  possess 
in  its  highest  degree  the  quality  of  force. 

The  force  of  an  argument  depends  in  large  measure  upon 
the  proper  use  of  emphasis.  Emphasis  is  the  means  by  which 
attention  is  called  to  the  importance  or  special  significance 
of  any  portion  of  the  argument.  One  of  the  ways  in  which 
any  part  of  the  subject-matter  may  be  emphasized  is  by 
expanding  or  dwelling  upon  that  part.  This  must  always  be 
done  with  due  consideration  for  the  other  parts  of  the  argu- 
ment. Hence  it  happens  that  proportion  is  used  as  a  means 
to  secure  emphasis.  The  writer  must  determine  the  really 
vital  parts  of  his  argument  and  aim  to  give  emphasis  to  them 
alone,  because  every  point  cannot  be  emphasized.  An  at- 
tempt to  emphasize  everything  results  in  no  emphasis  what- 
ever. Everything  must  not  be  on  the  same  dead  level,  be- 
cause if  it  is  the  audience  or  reader  will  soon  lose  interest. 
We  sometimes  speak  of  the  important  points  as  the  "high 
places"  in  the  argument.  These  "high  places"  must  exist, 
because  it  is  impossible  for  the  reader  or  hearer  to  remember 
all  the  details  of  a  lengthy  argument.  He  will,  however, 
remember  the  important  points,  providing  they  have  been 
properly  emphasized. 

We  now  turn  to  the  methods  by  which  the  best  use  can 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  119 

be  made  of  the  space  devoted  to  the  emphasizing  of  any  par- 
ticular point.  The  use  of  metaphors,  similes,  and  epigrams 
is  an  effective  mode  of  emphasis.  An  apt  metaphor  or  simile 
will  remain  in  the  minds  of  readers  or  hearers  long  after  the 
trend  of  the  argument  is  forgotten. 

Another  method  frequently  employed  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  emphasis  is  that  of  the  rhetorical  question.  Since 
such  a  question  impHes  an  answer  favorable  to  the  party 
asking  it,  it  must  appear  plainly  that  the  answer  is  bound 
to  be  as  he  desires.  In  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  both 
speakers  made  frequent  use  of  this  method,  and  Webster,  in 
emphasizing  the  necessity  of  finding  the  murderer  of  Captain 
John  White  asks,  "Should  not  all  the  peaceable  and  well 
disposed  naturally  feel  concerned,  and  naturally  exert  them- 
selves to  bring  to  punishment  the  authors  of  the  secret  as- 
sassination? Was  it  a  thing  to  be  slept  upon  or  forgotten? 
Did  you,  gentlemen,  sleep  quite  as  quietly  in  your  beds  after 
this  murder  as  you  did  before?  Was  it  not  a  case  for  rewards, 
for  meetings,  for  committees,  for  the  united  efforts  of  all  the 
good,  to  find  out  a  band  of  murderous  conspirators,  of  m.id- 
night  rufi&ans,  and  to  bring  them  to  the  bar  of  justice  and 
law?" 

The  use  of  repetition  for  the  purpose  of  emphasis  is  most 
important.  In  employing  this  method  care  should  be  taken 
not  to  overdo  it,  as  such  a  process  is  always  fatal  to  interest. 
The  central  idea  should  be  repeated,  but  the  phrasing  should 
be  skillfully  varied  so  as  to  prevent  the  repetition  from  becom- 
ing monotonous.  Furthermore,  the  point  of  view  should  be 
changed.  This  not  only  serves  to  change  the  manner  in 
which  the  idea  is  presented  but  will  help  to  hold  the  interest. 
Perhaps  one  point  of  view  will  appeal  more  strongly  to  some 
people  than  to  others.  Hence  by  changing  the  point  of  view 
the  greatest  number  of  people  are  influenced.  It  must  be 
kept  in  mind,  however,  that  it  is  not  the  point  of  view  of  the 


I20  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

writer  which  changes  but  merely  the  point  of  view  from 
which  he  presents  the  part  of  the  argument  to  be  empha- 
sized. 

(3).  Elegance. 

As  has  already  been  suggested,  the  appearance  of  an  argu- 
ment has  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
received.  By  appearance  is  meant  the  way  in  which  it  ap- 
pears to  the  mind  of  the  person  addressed.  If  it  appears  to 
be  a  stiff,  formal,  arrogant  piece  of  work  it  may  only  excite 
intellectual  curiosity  instead  of  arousing  interest  and  creating 
desire.  The  argument  must  appeal  with  freshness  and  vi- 
vacity to  the  person  addressed.  It  is  no  small  task  to  form 
an  elegant  forensic  from  a  solid,  rigid  brief. 

From  the  student's  study  of  ease,  grace,  elegance,  and 
rhythm  as  found  in  books  of  rhetoric,  he  will  have  obtained 
a  fair  idea  of  the  quality  of  elegance  and  can  make  an  intelli- 
gent effort  to  secure  it  in  his  own  work.  But  the  most  effect- 
ive way  in  which  to  acquire  a  sense  of  elegance  is  by  the 
study  of  those  masterpieces  of  argument  which  possess  this 
quahty  to  a  high  degree.  Rules  cannot  be  formulated  nor 
practicable  principles  laid  down  for  obtaining  this  quality. 
Just  as  the  musician  acquires  a  sense  of  what  is  proper  and 
what  is  not  proper  in  his  art,  so,  must  the  writer  of  an  argu- 
ment acquire  a  sense  of  what  is  proper  and  what  is  not  proper 
by  a  study  of  the  works  of  those  who  have  been  masters 
in  the  art  of  argumentation.  The  simple  elegance  of  Lincoln's 
style,  the  impressive  elegance  of  the  style  of  Webster,  and  the 
fiery  elegance  of  which  Patrick  Henry  was  master,  must  be 
studied  earnestly  by  the  student.  The  orations  of  Webster, 
the  speeches  of  Burke,  and  the  arguments  of  Lincoln  should 
be  read  over  and  over  again.  Favorite  passages  should  be 
committed  to  memory  and  all  the  speeches  should  be  read 
for  the  purpose  of  being  enjoyed.    This  will  impart  a  wealth 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  I2l 

of  expression  and  an  elegance  of  style  which  can  be  obtained 
in  no  other  way. 

In  considering  the  subject  of  "Interest — Maintained  by 
the  Proof"  let  the  student  remember  that  all  the  methods 
herein  suggested  stand  ready  to  aid  him  in  his  supreme  desire 
to  be  heard  if  he  will  but  master  them  and  make  them  his 
servants. 

III.  Desire — created  by  the  conclusion. 

Attention  has  been  previously  called  to  the  fact  that  the 
practical  application  of  introduction,  proof,  and  conclusion 
to  the  creating  of  attention,  interest,  and  desire  is  approxi- 
mate rather  than  absolute.  The  main  part  of  the  argument 
which  is  contained  in  the  proof  carries  forward  the  work  of 
persuasion.  It  creates  a  desire  to  understand  the  whole 
truth  about  the  proposition  discussed.  When  we  say  that 
the  desire  is  created  by  the  conclusion  we  mean  that  all  the 
good  effect  produced  by  the  proof  is  summed  up  and  pre- 
sented in  such  a  forcible  manner  that  it  awakens  the  desire  for 
action. 

The  proof  has  maintained  the  interest  of  those  to  whom  the 
argument  is  addressed.  It  has  established  a  firm  basis  in 
rational  desire.  The  object  of  the  conclusion  is  to  arouse 
emotions  sufficient  to  move  the  will.  In  order  that  it  may  do 
this  it  should  be  in  the  form  of  an  appeal  for  the  adoption 
or  defeat  of  the  resolution.  To  imderstand  the  way  in  which 
this  plea  or  appeal  should  be  made  it  is  necessary  to  under- 
stand the  forces  which  influence  the  individual  to  act.  These 
forces  are  known  as  the  qualities  of  want.  The  desire  to  act 
results  from  one  or  more  of  the  following  seven  causes. 

I.  Necessity. 

If  the  proof  which  has  been  presented  for  or  against  the 
proposition  shows  that  the  proposed  measure  is  necessary 
the  conclusion  should  make  necessity  the  basis  of- the  plea. 


122  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

Necessity  is  a  strong  basis  for  an  argument.  If  a  thing  is  a 
necessity,  all  reasonable  persons  will  agree  that  it  should  be 
adopted,  providing  there  is  no  predominating  circumstance 
which  makes  its  adoption  inadvisable.  Lincoln  urged  upon 
his  hearers  the  necessity  of  settling  the  slavery  question, 
Patrick  Henry  urged  the  necessity  of  resistance  to  the  tyranny 
of  England,  and  Daniel  Webster  urged  the  necessity  of  hold- 
ing the  Union  inviolate.  By  showing  that  a  thing  is  necessary, 
that  disaster  will  follow  inaction,  orators  have  aroused  the 
energies  of  men  in  order  that  great  reforms  might  prevail. 
The  speaker  who  can  show  that  the  cause  of  action  which 
he  advocates  is  necessary  to  the  state,  to  the  community, 
or  to  the  individual  has  made  a  strong  plea  for  its  adoption. 

2.  Interest. 

By  an  appeal  to  interest  we  do  not  mean  anything  un- 
worthy of  either  speaker  or  hearer.  Legitimate  self-interest 
is  perhaps  the  strongest  motive  which  incites  men  to  action. 
This  trait  of  the  human  character  should  not  be  lost  sight  of 
by  the  student  of  argumentation.  In  one  way  or  another 
almost  every  proposition  may  be  made  to  appeal  to  the  self- 
interest  of  the  individual.  For  the  purpose  of  being  system- 
atic we  may  consider  this  self-interest  under  the  three  heads, 
Convenience,  Pleasure,  and  Profit. 

A.  Convenience. 

If  if  Can  be  shown  that  the  adoption  of  a  definite  course  of 
action  will  be  for  the  convenience  of  the  individual  a  strong 
point  in  its  favor  has  been  estabhshed.  If  emphasis  can  be 
placed  upon  the  fact  that  it  will  be  for  the  convenience  of  the 
community  as  a  whole  the  argument  will  be  still  stronger,  for 
some  people  love  to  flatter  themselves  that  they  are  con- 
sidering the  interests  of  their  fellow  men  as  well  as  of  them- 
selves, and  many  people  are  honest  in  this  impulse.  More- 
over, this  public  spirit  is  an  actual  factor  in  determining  the 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  123 

actions  of  men.  Such  an  argument  is  especially  valuable  in 
discussing  local  questions.  In  advocating  the  building  of  a 
new  bridge,  the  granting  of  concessions  to  a  proposed  railroad 
or  street  car  line  the  appeal  to  the  convenience  of  the  people 
of  the  community  is  very  strong.  By  the  application  of  a 
little  ingenuity  in  connecting  the  points  of  the  argument  with 
the  everyday  life  of  the  people  to  whom  it  is  addressed,  the 
effectiveness  of  the  conclusion  may  be  greatly  increased. 

B.  Pleasure. 

The  average  person  is  inclined  to  accept  that  which  is 
pleasing  to  him  and  reject  that  which  is  displeasing.  In  the 
construction  of  the  proof  we  have  been  trying  to  keep  interest 
alive  by  presenting  our  subject  in  an  interesting  manner.  In 
the  conclusion  we  must  sum  up  this  matter  in  such  a  way  as 
to  conform  to  the  pleasure  of  those  addressed.  The  building 
of  a  new  theatre,  a  town  hall,  or  a  park  may  be  made  to 
appeal  to  many  interests  of  the  community,  but  after  all  is 
said  the  fact  remains  that  the  main  justification  for  such 
buildings  rests  upon  the  pleasure  which  they  give  to  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  community.  As  in  the  case  of  con- 
venience, this  element  of  pleasure  may  be  utilized  with  prac- 
tical results  in  the  closing  plea. 

C.  Profit. 

The  strongest  appeal  to  self-interest  can  be  made  by  show- 
ing that  the  action  advocated  will  result  in  profit  to  the  in- 
dividual. By  showing  that  a  proposed  plan  of  taxation  will 
result  in  lowering  the  yearly  amount  of  tax  which  John 
Jones  will  have  to  pay,  you  will  probably  secure  the  vote  of 
John  Jones  in  favor  of  your  proposition.  By  showing  that 
the  purchase  of  a  potato  digger  will  increase  the  amount  of 
money  which  a  farmer  can  make  raising  potatoes,  you  have 
gone  far  toward  convincing  that  farmer  that  he  should  buy  a 
potato  digger.  By  showing  that  consolidation  will  yield 
greater  profit  to  the  business  man  you  have  done  much  to 


124  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

persuade  him  to  join  the  combination.  By  showing  that  the 
lowering  of  the  tariff  schedule  will  reduce  the  cost  of  Hving 
you  may  induce  many  persons  to  advocate  a  lower  tariff. 
In  every  argument  self-interest  plays  an  important  part. 
The  conclusion  should  therefore  leave  firmly  fixed  in  the 
mind  of  the  reader  or  hearer  the  fact  that  the  action  advocated 
will  be  for  his  best  interests. 

3.  Jealousy,  vanity,  and  hatred. 

An  appeal  to  the  baser  passions  of  mankind  is  not  to  be 
commended.  Nevertheless,  we  are  here  treating  of  real 
arguments  in  a  real  world.  Since  the  end  of  argumentation 
is  action,  and  since  jealousy,  vanity,  and  hatred  are  motives 
which  stir  men  to  action,  we  must  consider  them.  Personal 
motives  may  furnish  subsidiary  inducements  to  action.  The 
jealousy  wliich  one  business  man  feels  toward  his  competitor 
may  induce  liim  to  adopt  new  methods  of  doing  business  in 
order  that  he  may  outdo  his  rival.  The  vanity  which  a 
manufacturer  feels  in  the  superiority  of  his  goods  may  be 
the  determining  factor  in  the  adoption  of  improved  ma- 
chinery. The  hatred  which  the  honest  citizen  entertains  for 
boss  rule  may  be  the  determining  factor  in  deciding  the  way 
he  will  vote.  The  ingenuity  of  the  student  must  be  employed 
in  trying  to  fathom  the  unseen  causes  which  guide  the  ac- 
tivities of  his  fellows. 

4.  Ambition. 

The  ambition  of  an  individual  to  excel  in  his  business, 
trade,  or  profession;  the  ambition  of  a  community  to  have 
the  best  social  and  educational  advantages;  and  the  ambition 
of  a  nation  to  outreach  the  world  in  trade  and  commerce, 
may  all  form  the  substantial  basis  for  action.  By  appealing 
to  this  praiseworthy  ambition  the  emotional  element  is  added 
to  the  element  of  intellectual  conviction. 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  12$ 

5.  Generosity. 

Every  human  being  is  moved  at  times  by  generous  im- 
pulses which  may  arise  from  a  variety  of  causes.  The  arguer 
should  study  these  causes  and  attempt  to  stimulate  the  im- 
pulses. Dignify  the  position  of  those  to  whom  the  appeal  is 
made  by  showing  them  that  they  can  well  afford  to  be  gener- 
ous. 

6.  Love  of  right  and  justice. 

The  arguer  should  never  fail  to  leave  his  hearers  with  the 
conviction  that  he  champions  a  just  cause.  This  appeal  can 
always  be  made,  because  under  no  circumstances  should 
anyone  champion  a  cause  which  is  unjust.  In  this  age  people 
as  a  whole  are  wilHng  to  do  the  right  thing,  despite  the  ac- 
tions of  particular  individuals  or  groups  of  individuals  to  the 
contrary.  Abstract  justice  in  its  application  to  the  particular 
proposition  should  form  the  basis  of  the  final  plea. 

7.  Love  of  country,  home,  and  kindred. 

The  hearts  of  men  have  always  been  stirred  by  the  appeal 
to  patriotism.  Action  in  its  most  intense  form  will  follow  the 
right  appeal  to  love  of  country.  The  protection  of  home  and 
kindred  has  from  the  dawn  of  history  been  the  prime  motive 
in  all  great  world  movements.  Other  causes  may  appear  on 
the  surface,  but  underlying  these  in  one  form  or  another  is 
this  primal  cause.  Wars  are  waged  and  nations  built  up  or 
overthrown  because  of  the  use  or  abuse  of  this  power.  There- 
fore the  speaker  must  make  a  broad  appUcation  of  his  par- 
ticular argument  in  the  closing  paragraph. 

With  these  fundamental  suggestions  in  mind  regarding 
the  attitude  which  the  conclusion  should  take,  we  will  now 
turn  to  the  form  in  which  it  is  to  be  presented. 

The  conclusion  must  conform  to  the  brief  by  summing  up 
the  main  arguments  and  putting  them  clearly  before  the 


126  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

audience.  This  summary  is  necessary  in  order  to  make  the 
proof  clear  and  forcible.  It  should  contain  the  main  issues, 
and,  whenever  practicable,  the  subordinate  reasons  support- 
ing them,  in  order  that  the  chief  points  in  the  proof  of  the 
proposition  may  be  recalled  by  the  audience. 

An  example  of  the  simple  summary  which  is  often  quoted 
as  a  model,  is  the  conclusion  of  the  argument  made  by  Daniel 
Webster  in  the  case  of  Ogden  v.  Saunders: — 

"To  recapitulate  what  has  been  said,  we  maintain,  first, 
that  the  Constitution,  by  its  grants  to  Congress  and  its  pro- 
hibitions to  the  states,  has  sought  to  establish  one  uniform 
standard  of  value,  or  medium  of  payment.  Second,  that,  by 
like  means,  it  has  endeavored  to  provide  for  one  uniform 
mode  of  discharging  debts,  when  they  are  to  be  discharged 
without  payment.  Third,  that  these  objects  are  connected, 
and  that  the  first  loses  much  of  its  importance,  if  the  last, 
also,  be  not  accompHshed.  Fourth,  that,  reading  the  grant 
to  Congress  and  the  prohibition  on  the  states  together,  the 
inference  is  strong  that  the  Constitution  intended  to  confer 
an  exclusive  power  to  pass  bankrupt  laws  on  Congress.  Fifth, 
that  the  prohibition  in  the  tenth  section  reaches  to  all  con- 
tracts, existing  or  in  the  future,  in  the  same  way  that  the 
other  prohibition,  in  the  same  section,  extends  to  all  debts, 
existing  or  in  the  future.  Sixthly,  that,  upon  any  other 
construction,  one  great  political  object  of  the  Constitution 
will  fail  of  its  accomplishment." 

Again  in  the  argument  on  the  Presidential  Protest  he 
summarizes  with  effect  and  concludes: — 

" — We  have  not  sought  this  controversy;  it  has  met  us 
and  been  forced  upon  us.  In  my  judgment,  the  law  has  been 
disregarded,  and  the  Constitution  transgressed;  the  fortress 
of  hberty  has  been  assaulted,  and  circumstances  have  placed 
the  Senate  in  the  breach;  and,  although  we  may  perish  in  it, 
I  know  we  shall  not  fly  from  it.    But  I  am  fearless  of  conse- 


CONSTRUCTING  THE  ARGUMENT  127 

quences.  We  shall  hold  on,  Sir,  and  hold  out,  till  the  people 
themselves  come  to  its  defense.  We  shall  raise  the  alarm, 
and  maintain  the  post,  till  they  whose  right  it  is  shall  decide 
whether  the  Senate  be  a  faction,  wantonly  resisting  lawful 
power,  or  whether  it  be  opposing,  with  firmness  and  pa- 
triotism, violations  of  Uberty,  and  inroads  upon  the  Con- 
stitution." 

In  concluding  this  chapter  on  constructing  the  argument, 
let  us  again  revert  to  the  fact  that  the  conclusion  must  be 
presented  in  such  a  way  as  to  create  a  desire  for  action.  The 
conclusion  must  "clinch"  the  argument.  The  time  has  come 
for  the  reader  or  hearer  to  act,  or  determine  upon  action. 
All  the  labor  spent  upon  the  introduction  in  arousing  and 
fixing  the  attention,  and  all  the  labor  spent  upon  the  proof  in 
maintaining  the  interest  and  building  a  firm  basis  for  per- 
suasion in  rational  conviction,  is  now  lost  unless  the  conclu- 
sion rises  supreme  above  these  and  presents  a  culmination 
forcible  and  commanding.  The  conclusion  should  reap  the 
harvest  of  persuasion  sown  throughout  the  argument.  The 
emotions  must  be  aroused  as  they  have  not  been  aroused  in 
the  presentation  of  the  proof;  they  must  be  stimulated  to  the 
highest  pitch.  The  conclusion  must  command  the  best 
powers  of  the  speaker  or  writer.  It  must  unite  the  audience, 
the  subject,  and  the  personahty  of  him  who  presents  the 
argument  into  one  mighty  current  of  thought  and  emotion 
which  leads  onward  to  action. 


CHAPTER  VII 

REBUTTAL 

Rebuttal  consists  of  defending  the  constructive  argument 
and  weakening  or  destroying  opposing  arguments.  Rebuttal 
is  both  defense  and  attack.  Refutation  is  attack  alone.  In 
formal  debate  rebuttal  refers  to  the  final  speech  made  by  each 
debater  after  he  has  presented  his  constructive  argument 
and  his  opponents  have  had  a  chance  to  reply.  The  main 
speech  in  a  formal  debate  is  usually  of  ten  minutes'  duration 
while  the  rebuttal  speech  is  of  five  minutes'  duration.  Fur- 
thermore, after  the  first  affirmative  speaker  has  opened  the 
debate  it  is  customary  for  each  succeeding  speaker  to  intro- 
duce his  main  argument  vnih  a  short  rebuttal  speech  of  one 
or  two  minutes,  or  he  may  introduce  rebuttal  at  any  point 
in  his  main  speech. 

The  rebuttal  speech  must  introduce  no  new  argument,  but 
is  Hmited  to  a  discussion  of  the  validity  of  the  arguments 
already  presented.  After  the  salesman  has  presented  his 
goods  and  the  reasons  why  the  prospective  customer  should 
buy,  he  must  answer  the  questions  regarding  those  reasons 
and  the  objections  which  are  made  to  them.  Furthermore, 
he  must  overthrow  any  reasons  for  not  buying  which  may  be 
advanced  by  the  customer.  In  arguing  with  a  single  in- 
dividual regarding  the  advisability  of  any  course  of  action 
the  arguer  must  defend  his  own  position  as  well  as  overthrow 
that  of  his  opponent.  In  organizations  and  deliberative 
bodies  the  speaker  who  proposes  any  plan  or  measure  must 
be  prepared  to  answer  any  objections  which  may  be  made 
to  it;  and  must  also  be  prepared  to  weaken  or  destroy  the 

128 


REBUTTAL  129 

arguments  which  may  be  advanced  in  support  of  other  plans 
or  measures  which  conflict  with  his  own.  It  is  thus  seen  that 
a  knowledge  of  the  preparation  and  presentation  of  rebuttal 
is  almost  indispensable  to  the  student  who  would  make 
practical  application  of  the  theory  and  practice  of  argimien- 
tation.  Since  our  work  is  to  take  the  form  of  debating,  we 
shall  consider  the  subject  largely  from  this  standpoint. 
Nevertheless,  the  student  should  constantly  keep  in  mind  the 
broader  apphcation  of  the  principles  which  are  used  in  formal 
debating. 

I.  Preparation  for  rebuttal. 

Rebuttal  should  never  be  considered  lightly  from  the 
standpoint  of  preparation.  The  speaker  who  relies  on  the 
"spur"  of  the  moment  is  quite  sure  to  find  that  when  the 
moment  arrives  it  has  no  "spur."  The  rebuttal  should  be 
prepared  as  carefully  as  the  constructive  argument.  It 
demands  exact  and  far-reaching  knowledge.  Furthermore, 
it  demands  absolute  command  of  that  knowledge  in  order 
that  it  may  be  used  effectively.  In  this  preparation  the 
student  should  consider  the  sources  from  which  he  may  de- 
rive the  appropriate  material,  and  the  proper  arrangement 
of  that  material  after  it  has  been  collected. 

I.  Sources  of  material  for  rebuttal. 

A .  Material  acquired  in  constructing  the  argument. 

The  investigation  which  preceded  and  accompanied  the 
construction  of  the  brief  and  argument  should  have  yielded 
a  wide  knowledge  of  the  subject.  Much  of  the  material 
gathered  could  not  be  used  because  of  limitations  of  time  or 
space,  because  of  its  not  being  adapted  to  use  in  the  argument 
as  it  was  to  be  presented,  or  because  of  the  abundance  of 
better  material.  The  student  will  therefore  have  in  his  pos- 
session a  large  number  of  facts  which  were  not  used.    These 


I30  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

should  be  carefully  reviewed  in  order  that  the  "stock  in 
trade"  of  rebuttal  material  may  be  invoiced.  The  student 
should  then  revert  to  his  original  analysis  and  examine  his 
opponents'  position  with  a  critical  eye.  He  should  measure 
carefully  the  strength  of  that  position  and  compare  it  with 
his  own.  All  the  sources  which  were  consulted  in  the  be- 
ginning should  again  be  made  to  yield  information.  This 
can  now  be  done  with  ease,  because  the  preparation  of  the 
constructive  argument  has  given  the  student  a  firm  grasp 
upon  the  subject-matter. 

Every  possible  point  of  attack  which  the  constructive 
argument  presents  must  be  fortified  by  full  and  complete 
rebuttal  material.  The  debater  should  begin  at  his  argument 
as  a  starting  point  and  work  back  along  the  line  of  evidence 
supporting  each  general  assertion.  Since  it  was  impracticable 
to  put  into  the  argument  all  the  evidence  supporting  any 
one  contention,  the  student  must  now  have  this  evidence  at 
hand  in  order  to  support  his  argument  at  the  point  where  the 
attack  can  be  made.  It  is  almost  impossible  to  construct  an 
argument  which  cannot  be  attacked  in  a  plausible  manner, 
but  it  is  entirely  possible  to  construct  an  argument  which 
can  be  defended  successfully. 

After  the  constructive  argument  has  been  fortified,  the 
main  contentions  of  the  opposition,  which  the  analysis  of 
the  question  has  revealed,  must  receive  careful  attention. 
Every  possible  line  of  attack  which  the  opposition  may  ad- 
vance should  be  considered.  The  student  cannot  hope  to 
determine  beforehand  the  form  in  which  these  arguments 
will  be  presented.  Nevertheless,  if  his  analysis  of  the  proposi- 
tion has  been  made  in  a  thorough  manner,  and  if  his  prepara- 
tion has  been  thorough,  he  cannot  fail  to  have  grasped  the 
underljdng  arguments  of  his  opponents'  position.  These 
should  now  be  refuted  with  the  best  material  which  the  de- 
bater can  find.    He  must  be  as  diligent  in  ferreting  out  evi- 


REBUTTAL  13 1 

dence  which  will  overthrow  his  opponents'  position  as  he 
was  in  searching  for  evidence  with  which  to  support  his  own. 
No  available  source  of  evidence  should  be  neglected.  Every 
weak  point  in  the  opposing  argument  should  be  exposed 
and  "ammunition"  with  which  to  attack  these  weak  places 
should  be  collected.  This  material  should  be  tabulated  on 
cards  in  the  same  form  that  was  used  in  tabulating  material 
for  the  constructive  argument.  The  following  specimens 
of  rebuttal  cards,  prepared  by  students  for  an  interclass  de- 
bate, may  prove  suggestive. 


Injustice.  D.A.Wells. 


"Taxation  in  aid  of  private  enterprises  is  to  load  the 
tables  of  the  few  with  bounty,  that  the  many  may  par- 
take of  the  crumbs  that  fall  therefrom." 

The  Theory  and  Practice  of  Taxation,  p.  292. 


Test  of  Ability.  Philip  S.  Post. 


"By  successive  stages  more  equitable  standards  of 
taxation  have  been  reached,  until  now  there  is  a  general 
acceptance  of  the  maxim  that  income  is  the  best  test  by 
which  to  measure  a  man's  ability." 

Outlook,  Vol.  85,  p.  503  (1907). 


Equality  of  Sacrifice.  R.  T.  Ely. 


"An  income  tax  honestly  assessed  and  honestly  col- 
lected answers  the  canon  of  Equality  of  Sacrifice." 
Taxation  in  American  States,  p.  89. 


B.  Books,  papers,  and  documents. 

It  often  happens  that  the  question  has  been  debated  pre- 
viously.   In  such  cases  books,  papers,  and  documents  may 


132  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

be  found  which  contain  "ready-made"  rebuttal  arguments. 
The  debater  should  never  rely  on  these  alone.  The  prepara- 
tion suggested  in  the  last  section  is  an  absolute  prerequisite 
to  successful  work  in  rebuttal.  However,  these  ready-made 
arguments  should  be  searched  out  carefully  and  made  to 
form  a  part  of  the  material  for  rebuttal.  Such  evidence  is  of 
course  subject  to  the  same  requirement  regarding  its  worth 
and  validity  as  the  sources  of  material  consulted  in  con- 
structing the  main  argument. 

The  student  should  now  go  over  his  cards  carefully  and 
consider  the  various  books,  papers,  or  documents  from  which 
his  information  was  derived.  Any  of  these  books,  papers,  or 
documents  which  stand  as  authority  for  vital  facts,  or  for 
facts  about  which  there  is  likely  to  be  a  dispute,  should  be 
taken  out  and  placed  with  the  other  material  which  is  to 
be  used  in  rebuttal.  Especially  should  this  be  done  in  cases 
where  the  debater  feels  that  he  has  authority  which  is  prob- 
ably better  than  that  which  his  opponents  will  be  able  to 
quote.  For  example,  a  government  document  makes  a  very 
effective  showing  when  it  is  quoted  as  contradicting  the 
statement  of  some  unknown  magazine  writer.  In  like  man- 
ner statistics  from  the  United  States  Census  Reports  will  pre- 
vail over  statistics  found  in  an  address  delivered  by  some 
partisan  leader.  Since  such  conflicts  of  authority  are  likely 
to  arise  it  is  important  that  the  debater  have  at  hand  the 
original  sources  of  the  information  which  forms  the  basis  of 
his  argument  or  rebuttal.  Moreover,  a  recognized  authority 
sometimes  changes  his  opinion.  In  this  case  the  debater 
should  be  careful  to  provide  himself  with  the  book,  paper,  or 
document  which  contains  his  latest  views  on  the  subject 
discussed.  These  become  especially  valuable  when  the  oppo- 
sition reUes  upon  the  old  views  of  the  authority  quoted.  In 
this,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  authority,  the  usual  tests  of  suffi- 
ciency apply. 


REBUTTAL  133 

C.  Questions, 

The  skillful  asking  of  questions  is  a  most  important  matter 
in  debating.  These  are  often  asked  in  the  main  argument, 
but  it  is  in  the  rebuttal  that  the  answers  are  usually  threshed 
out.  If  the  questions  are  not  asked  originally  in  the  rebuttal 
they  should  at  least  be  reverted  to  during  this  part  of  the 
debate.  No  debater  can  consider  himself  thoroughly  pre- 
pared who  has  not  framed  some  effective  questions  and  who 
is  not  ready  to  answer  questions  which  may  be  asked  by  his 
opponents.  The  interrogatories  which  are  intended  to  be 
discussed  in  the  rebuttal  are  not  rhetorical  questions,  but 
questions  calling  for  definite  answers. 

There  are  two  well  defined  uses  to  which  these  questions 
may  be  put.  First,  they  may  be  used  to  compel  an  opponent 
to  take  a  definite  position  on  some  issue  which  he  appears 
to  be  attempting  to  evade.  Second,  they  may  be  used  to 
force  an  opponent  into  a  dilemma,  in  which  position  he  will 
be  at  a  disadvantage  without  regard  to  the  answer  which  he 
gives.  Very  often  an  opponent  is  more  skillful  in  evading 
the  real  point  at  issue  than  he  is  in  debating  it.  In  such 
cases  a  question  or  series  of  questions  may  be  necessary  in 
order  to  compel  him  to  discuss  the  subject  of  dispute.  Some- 
times an  opponent  intentionally  evades  the  real  point  at 
issue  because  he  knows  his  position  is  weak  and  seeks  to 
cover  up  the  real  defect  under  a  plausible  show  of  language. 
In  both  of  these  situations  the  use  of  direct  C|uestions  is 
effective.  The  wording  of  these  questions  should  receive  the 
same  careful  consideration  which  is  bestowed  upon  the  word- 
ing of  a  proposition.  The  questions  must  be  clear  and  un- 
ambiguous and  must  call  for  definite  and  direct  answers. 
No  opportunity  for  evasion  should  be  allowed.  Furthermore, 
these  questions  must  be  worded  forcibly  and  emphasized  in 
such  a  way  that  an  opponent  will  not  dare  to  leave  them 
unanswered. 


134  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

On  the  other  hand,  if  an  opponent  propounds  certain  ques- 
tions to  which  answers  are  demanded,  the  debater  must 
either  answer  these  questions  satisfactorily  or  show  good  rea- 
son why  they  should  remain  unanswered.  In  the  famous 
Lincoln-Douglas  debates,  which  began  August,  1858,  questions 
were  frequently  asked  by  both  parties.  In  the  first  debate, 
which  was  held  at  Ottawa,  Illinois,  Douglas  asked  Lincoln 
seven  distinct  questions.  In  the  second  debate  which  was 
held  at  Freeport,  Lincoln  restated  these  questions  and  an- 
swered them  briefly  and  to  the  point  in  the  following  manner: 

"In  the  course  of  that  opening  argument  Judge  Douglas 
proposed  to  me  seven  distinct  interrogatories.  In  my  speech 
of  an  hour  and  a  half,  I  attended  to  some  other  parts  of  his 
speech,  and  incidentally,  as  I  thought,  answered  one  of  the 
interrogatories  then.  I  then  distinctly  intimated  to  liim 
that  I  would  answer  the  rest  of  his  interrogatories  on  condi- 
tion only  that  he  would  agree  to  answer  as  many  for  me.  He 
made  no  intimation  at  the  time  of  the  proposition,  nor  did 
he  in  his  reply  allude  at  all  to  that  suggestion  of  mine.  I  do 
him  no  injustice  in  saying  that  he  occupied  at  least  half  of 
his  reply  in  dealing  with  me  as  though  I  had  refused  to  answer 
his  interrogatories.  I  now  propose  that  I  will  answer  any 
of  the  interrogatories,  upon  condition  that  he  will  answer 
questions  from  me  not  exceeding  the  same  number.  I  give 
him  an  opportunity  to  respond.  The  Judge  remains  silent. 
I  now  say  that  I  will  answer  his  interrogatories,  whether  he 
answers  mine  or  not;  and  that  after  I  have  done  so  I  shall 
propound  mine  to  him. 

"I  have  supposed  myself,  since  the  organization  of  the 
Republican  party  at  Bloomington,  in  May,  1856,  bound  as 
a  party  man  by  the  platforms  of  the  party,  then  and  since. 
If  in  any  interrogatories  which  I  shall  answer  I  go  beyond  the 
scope  of  what  is  within  these  platforms,  it  will  be  perceived 
that  no  one  is  responsible  but  myself. 


REBUTTAL  13S 

"Having  said  this  much,  I  will  take  up  the  Judge's  inter- 
rogatories as  I  find  them  printed  in  the  Chicago  Times, 
and  answer  them  seriatim.  In  order  that  there  may  be  no 
mistake  about  it,  I  have  copied  the  interrogatories  in  writing, 
and  also  my  answers  to  them.  The  first  one  of  these  interrog- 
atories is  in  these  words: 

Question  i — 'I  desire  to  know  whether  Lincoln  today 
stands,  as  he  did  in  1854,  in  favor  of  the  unconditional  repeal 
of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law? ' 

Answer — I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  in  favor  of  the 
unconditional  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law. 

Question' 2 — 'I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands 
pledged  today,  as  he  did  in  1854,  against  the  admission  of 
any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union  even  if  the  people  want 
them? ' 

Answer — I  do  not  now,  nor  ever  did,  stand  pledged  against 
the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States  into  the  Union. 

Question  j — '  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged 
against  the  admission  of  a  new  State  into  the  Union  with  such 
a  Constitution  as  the  people  of  that  state  may  see  fit  to  make? ' 

Answer — I  do  not  stand  pledged  against  the  admission  of 
a  new  State  into  the  Union,  with  such  a  Constitution  as  the 
people  of  that  State  may  see  fit  to  make. 

Question  4 — '  I  want  to  know  whether  he  stands  today 
pledged  to  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia?' 

Answer — I  do  not  stand  today  pledged  to  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 

Question  5 — 'I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  stands 
pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the  slave  trade  between  the 
different  states?' 

Answer — I  do  not  stand  pledged  to  the  prohibition  of  the 
.  slave  trade  between  the  different  states. 

Question  6 — 'I  desire  to  know  whether  he  stands  pledged 


136  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

to  prohibit  slavery  in  all  the  Territories  of  the  United  States, 
north  as  well  as  south  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  Hne? ' 

Answer — I  am  impliedly,  if  not  expressly,  pledged  to  a 
belief  in  the  right  and  duty  of  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in 
all  the  United  States  Territories. 

Question  7 — 'I  desire  him  to  answer  whether  he  is  opposed 
to  the  acquisition  of  any  new  territory  unless  slavery  is  first 
prohibited  therein?' 

Answer — I  am  not  generally  opposed  to  honest  acquisition 
of  territory;  and,  in  any  given  case,  I  would  or  would  not 
oppose  such  acquisition,  according  as  I  might  think  such 
acquisition  would  or  would  not  aggravate  the  slavery  ques- 
tion among  ourselves. 

"Now,  my  friends,  it  will  be  perceived  upon  an  examina- 
tion of  these  questions  and  answers,  that  so  far  I  have  only 
answered  that  I  was  not  pledged  to  this,  that,  or  the  other. 
The  Judge  has  not  framed  his  interrogatories  to  ask  me  any- 
thing more  than  this,  and  I  have  answered  in  strict  accord- 
ance with  the  interrogatories,  and  have  answered  truly,  that 
I  am  not  pledged  at  all  upon  any  of  the  points  to  which  I  have 
answered.  But  I  am  not  disposed  to  hang  upon  the  exact 
form  of  his  interrogatory.  I  am  rather  disposed  to  take  up 
at  least  some  of  these  questions,  and  state  what  I  really 
think  of  them." 

In  the  above  example  of  the  use  of  questions  and  answers 
it  will  be  noted  that  Lincoln  emphasizes  his  fairness  by  offer- 
ing to  answer  his  opponent's  questions  provided  that  op- 
ponent will  do  the  same  with  questions  which  he  propounds. 
When  Judge  Douglas  does  not  accept  this  proposition, 
Lincoln  follows  up  his  just  course  of  conduct  by  declaring 
that  he  will  answer  his  opponent's  question*  whether  that 
opponent  will  answer  his  or  not.  He  then  makes  an  intro- 
ductory statement  in  which  he  limits  the  responsibility  of 
his  answers  strictly  to  himself.    He  next  takes  up  each  ques- 


REBUTTAL  137 

tion  and  answers  it  briefly  and  directly.  He  concludes  these 
answers  with  a  paragraph  in  which  he  shows  that  he  has 
answered  the  questions  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  form 
in  which  they  were  asked.  Then  he  again  shows  his  fairness 
and  even  liberahty  toward  his  opponent  by  taking  up  the 
more  important  questions  and  giving  a  full  and  complete 
discussion  of  each  one.  After  this  fair  and  comprehensive 
treatment  Lincoln  proceeds  to  propound  his  questions  to 
Judge  Douglas  in  the  following  manner. 

"I  now  proceed  to  propound  to  the  Judge  the  interroga- 
tories so  far  as  I  have  framed  them.  I  will  bring  forward  a 
new  installment  when  I  get  them  ready.  I  will  bring  them 
forward  now  only  reaching  to  number  four. 

The  first  one  is: — 

Question  i — If  the  people  of  Kansas  shall,  by  means  en- 
tirely unobjectionable  in  all  other  respects,  adopt  a  State 
constitution,  and  ask  admission  into  the  Union  under  it, 
before  they  have  the  requisite  number  of  inhabitants  accord- 
ing to  the  English  bill, — some  ninety-three  thousand, — will 
you  vote  to  admit  them? 

Question  2 — Can  the  people  of  a  United  States  Territory, 
in  any  lawful  way,  against  the  wish  of  any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  exclude  slavery  from  its  Hmits  prior  to  the 
formation  of  a  State  constitution? 

Question  j — If  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
shall  decide  that  States  cannot  exclude  slavery  from  their 
limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in,  adopting,  and 
following  such  a  decision  as  a  rule  of  political  action? 

Question  4 — Are  you  in  favor  of  acquiring  additional  ter- 
ritory, in  disregard  of  how  such  acquisition  may  affect  the 
nation  on  the  slavery  question?" 

The  foregoing  examples  ot  questions  and  answers  will  give 
an  idea  of  the  way  in  which  they  may  be  used  in  a  formal 
debate.     The  third  Interrogatory  propounded  by  Lincoln 


138  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

illustrates  well  the  type  of  question  which  is  designed  to 
force  an  opponent  into  a  dilemma.  This  inquiry  is  an  ex- 
ample of  the  great  analytical  abihty  of  Lincoln,  as  the  fol- 
lowing circumstances  will  show. 

The  Dred  Scott  decision  by  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  had  held  that  Congress  did  not  have  the  power  to 
exclude  slavery  from  any  of  the  territories.  Lincoln  regarded 
this  decision  as  wrong  and  said  so.  Douglas  denounced 
Lincoln  for  his  attitude  in  the  matter  and  declared  that  it 
was  unpatriotic,  disloyal,  and  revolutionary  for  any  man  to 
criticize  a  decision  of  the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  On 
the  other  hand  Lincoln  denounced  Douglas  on  the  ground 
that  he,  acting  in  conjunction  with  other  Democrats,  was 
engaged  in  a  conspiracy  to  nationalize  slavery.  In  support 
of  this  charge  he  offered  reasonable  evidence,  and  showed 
that  the  conspirators'  efforts  would  be  complete  providing 
they  could  get  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  which  would 
declare  that  a  state  could  not  exclude  slavery  from  its  borders. 
Lincoln  charged  Douglas  with  active  attempts  to  secure  this 
decision.  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  Lincoln 
asked  the  third  question,  viz.: — "If  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  shall  decide  that  the  States  cannot  exclude 
slavery  from  their  limits,  are  you  in  favor  of  acquiescing  in, 
adopting,  and  following  such  decision  as  a  rule  of  pohtical 
action?  " 

If  Douglas  answered  this  question  in  the  affirmative  it 
would  put  him  in  the  position  of  substantiating  Lincoln's 
charge  of  conspiracy.  This  would  be  very  embarrassing  for 
Douglas  and  give  Lincoln  a  decided  advantage.  On  the 
other  hand,  Douglas's  position  would  be  Just  as  embarrassing 
and  his  opponent  would  reap  as  great  an  advantage,  if  he 
answered  in  the  negative,  for  then  he  would  be  opposing  a 
decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,— the  very  thing  for  which  he 
had  so  bitterly  denounced  Lincoln.     The  question  was  so 


REBUTTAL  139 

worded  that  an  affirmative  or  a  negative  answer  would  be 
equally  disastrous. 

By  a  judicious  use  of  such  questions  the  debater  may 
direct  the  discussion  along  the  narrow  channel  which  it 
should  take,  and  bring  out  in  a  forcible  way  any  defects  in 
his  opponents'  position.  No  debater  should  consider  himself 
thoroughly  prepared  for  rebuttal  until  he  has  worked  out 
carefully  a  list  of  questions  framed  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  here  suggested. 

Another  form  of  attack  which  properly  belongs  under  this 
heading  is  that  of  demanding  a  definite  plan.  If  the  speaker 
is  upholding  the  negative  in  a  debate  on  the  question  of  the 
inheritance  tax,  he  should  demand  that  the  next  affirmative 
speaker  show  a  definite  plan  of  taxation.  If  the  opponent 
refuses  to  present  a  definite  plan  he  may  be  charged  with 
impracticability,  vagueness,  and  a  fear  that  no  plan  which 
he  might  present  could  be  defended  safely.  On  the  other 
hand  if  he  presents  a  definite  plan  it  may  be  easy  to  point 
out  glaring  defects  in  its  construction.  In  either  case  the 
demanding  of  a  definite  plan  may  be  made  to  work  to  the 
advantage  of  the  debater.  If  a  definite  plan  is  demanded  it 
is  usually  best  to  reply  that  the  discussion  is  on  principles 
not  plans.  In  this  way  attention  may  be  called  to  the  under- 
lying principles  of  the  controversy  and  it  can  be  shown  that, 
after  the  difficulties  which  they  present  have  been  solved,  a 
discussion  of  a  definite  plan  will  be  in  order  and  its  construc- 
tion will  then  be  a  simple  matter.  This  method  of  procedure, 
both  as  regards  the  demanding  of  a  definite  plan  and  the 
answering  of  that  demand,  affords  ample  scope  for  the  argu- 
mentative mind  to  display  its  breadth  of  perception  and  its 
keenness  in  analysis. 

2.  Arrangement  of  rebuttal  material. 
After  a  satisfactory  amount  of  rebuttal  material  has  been 


I40  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

collected  the  debater  must  arrange  this  material  in  such  a 
way  that  any  particular  part  of  it  will  be  readily  accessible. 
Since  the  amoimt  of  evidence  must  necessarily  be  so  large, 
that  all  of  it  cannot  be  kept  in  mind  at  one  time,  some  easy 
method  of  classification  is  necessary  which  will  include  every- 
thing that  may  be  of  use  when  the  rebuttal  is  to  be  presented. 
The  importance  of  this  systematic  classification  becomes 
apparent  when  the  debater  stops  to  reflect  that  he  has  enough 
rebuttal  material  for  a  one  or  two  hour  speech,  while  the 
actual  time  which  is  allowed  for  its  presentation  in  a  formal 
debate  is  usually  five  or  six  minutes.  Even  if  there  is  no 
time  limit  the  debater  must  not  weary  the  audience  by  long 
delays  while  he  searches  for  material.  The  debater  must 
know  exactly  where  each  piece  of  evidence  may  be  found. 
It  is  not  sufficient  that  he  have  a  vague  recollection  that 
somewhere  in  his  notes  is  an  authoritative  fact  which  will 
refute  the  argument  his  opponent  has  just  advanced.  He 
must  know  just  where  to  find  that  fact.  If  his  opponent 
has  misquoted  statistics  from  the  Report  of  the  United  States 
Industrial  Commission  it  is  not  sufficient  for  him  to  know  that 
somewhere  within  the  nineteen  volumes  of  that  report  is  a 
small  table  of  statistics  which  will  prove  his  opponent  to  be 
wrong.  He  must  be  able  to  turn  to  the  exact  volume  and 
page.  He  may  be  confident  that  an  authority,  which  he  has 
quoted  as  favoring  his  position,  is  really  on  his  side  of  the 
case;  but  if  he  cannot  give  an  exact  reference  to  the  place 
where  such  authority  is  to  be  found,  his  opponent  may  dis- 
pute the  assertion  with  impunity.  These  and  many  similar 
situations  which  are  bound  to  arise  in  actual  debating  make 
it  plain  that  the  task  of  arranging  material  is  a  very  im- 
portant part  of  the  preparation  for  rebuttal. 

A.  Classification  of  cards. 

The  rebuttal  cards  should  all  be  classified  under  a  sufficient 
number  of  headings  to  cover  the  entire  field  of  the  evidence 


REBUTTAL  14 1 

collected.  The  exact  number  of  headings  will,  of  course, 
vary  with  different  questions.  There  must  be,  however,  a 
sufficient  number  of  divisions  to  separate  the  cards  into 
groups  small  enough  to  be  handled  easily.  On  the  other  hand 
the  number  of  divisions  must  not  be  so  great  as  to  become 
confusing  in  themselves.  In  actual  practice  from  four  to 
eight  divisions  are  sufficient  for  practical  purposes.  In  a 
debate  on  the  proposition,  "Resolved,  that  the  United  States 
should  make  no  discrimination  between  the  immigrants  from 
China  and  those  from  other  countries,"  the  rebuttal  cards 
were  divided  into  the  following  groups;  (i)  Economic  in- 
fluence, (2)  Social  influence,  (3)  Political  influence. 

If  the  number  of  cards  in  any  one  group  is  too  large  to  be 
handled  easily,  that  group  may  be  divided  under  two  or 
more  sub-heads.  For  example,  in  the  division  above  made 
the  topic  "Social  influences"  was  found  to  include  a  much 
larger  number  of  cards  than  either  of  the  other  subdivisions; 
hence  it  was  divided  into  two  sub-heads,  (a)  assimilation, 
(b)  morality  and  crime.  This  careful  division  of  the  material 
will  make  the  debater  so  familiar  with  all  his  rebuttal  evidence 
that  he  can  without  hesitation  lay  his  hands  upon  just  what 
is  wanted.  The  work  of  locating  particular  points  of  evi- 
dence must  be  done  with  dispatch.  Time  is  valuable,  for 
the  debater  wfll  soon  be  called  upon  to  answer  the  argument 
that  is  being  presented.  Moreover,  if  he  spends  too  much 
time  looking  over  his  cards  and  if  the  process  requires  all  his 
attention,  he  may  lose  some  very  important  statement  which 
is  being  made  by  his  opponent. 

In  a  formal  debating  contest  it  is  sometimes  advisable  to 
nave  the  alternate  take  charge  of  the  entire  mass  of  rebuttal 
material.  In  this  case  the  cards  should  be  typewritten  so 
that  each  member  of  the  team  can  read  any  card  as  well  as 
any  other  member  of  the  team  can  read  it.  The  alternate 
sits  at  the  table  with  the  team  and  has  all  the  rebuttal  cards 


142  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

in  a  filing  box  before  him.  Then  as  each  argument  is  brought 
up  he  quickly  finds  the  most  effective  rebuttal  material  on 
that  point  and  hands  it  over  to  the  speaker  who  is  to  answer 
that  argument.  This  system  of  working  allows  the  regular 
members  of  the  team  to  give  all  their  attention  to  what  their 
opponents  are  saying.  The  alternate  performs  the  me- 
chanical work  of  finding  the  particular  evidence  required- 
With  a  team  whose  members  have  worked  out  the  question 
together  in  a  thorough  mamier,  this  method  is  very  effective. 

B.  Arranging  books,  papers,  and  documents. 

Following  the  suggestions  regarding  sources  of  material, 
the  debater  will  have  before  him  a  number  of  books,  papers, 
and  documents.  When  the  time  comes  to  use  these  sources 
of  material  the  debater  cannot  delay  the  discussion  by  hunt- 
ing through  them  in  an  aimless  fashion  in  search  of  the  precise 
information  wiiich  he  needs.  He  must  be  able  to  pick  out 
the  voliune  and  turn  to  the  exact  page  without  hesitation 
and  at  a  moment's  notice.  This  requisite  demands  the  same 
systematized  classification  that  was  employed  in  the  arrang- 
ing of  rebuttal  cards.  One  method  of  making  this  classifica- 
tion is  to  have  a  card  index  of  the  material.  The  general 
topic  to  be  refuted  should  be  placed  at  the  top  of  the  card. 
Below  this  should  be  an  exact  reference  to  the  book,  paper, 
or  document  in  which  the  material  for  refutation  is  found. 
Then  when  an  opponent  puts  forth  his  argument  it  is  only 
necessary  to  look  it  up  in  the  card  index  and  turn  to  the 
reference.  The  places  in  the  books,  papers,  and  documents, 
to  which  reference  is  made  in  the  card  index,  should  be 
marked  with  long  shps  of  paper  extending  beyond  the  tops 
of  the  books  and  having  on  the  protruding  parts  the  nmnbers 
of  the  pages  which  they  mark.  Furthermore,  the  particular 
portions  of  the  page  which  are  applicable  should  be  marked 
with  marginal  lines.  Great  care  should  be  taken  to  mark  only 
those  passages  which  are  exactly  to  the  pointj  otherwise  too 


REBUTTAL  143 

much  time  will  be  wasted  in  referring  to  matters  which  ma,* 
be  relevant  but  are  of  no  value  as  proof. 

This  system  of  indexing  material  contained  in  books, 
papers,  and  documents  will  be  found  to  be  almost  indis- 
pensable when  the  time  for  use  arrives.  The  debater  must 
practice  this  system  until  he  can  manipulate  it  with  ease  and 
rapidity.  In  the  case  of  team  work,  the  alternate  may  have 
charge  of  this  index,  which  can  be  made  a  part  of  the  large 
card  classification.  He  can  then  provide  each  rebuttal  speaker 
with  the  proper  material  as  the  occasion  for  its  use  arrives. 
Of  course,  in  the  case  of  a  single  speaker,  where  only  a  very 
few  volumes  are  to  be  used  in  the  rebuttal  the  system  of 
card  indexing  can  be  dispensed  with,  but  the  system  of  mark- 
ing the  exact  references  by  means  of  slips  of  paper  and  mar- 
ginal lines  should  always  be  employed. 

In  the  beginning  the  working  of  this  system,  as  that  of 
any  system,  will  seem  awkward  and  unwieldy;  but  the  de- 
bater must  practice  using  it  under  all  argumentative  condi- 
tions. In  tliis  way  he  will  gain  in  the  ease  and  rapidity  with 
which  he  can  manipulate  its  parts.  When  this  is  accom- 
plished he  will  have  a  most  effective  aid  to  the  kind  of  re- 
buttal work  which  secures  results.  The  student  must  not 
fail  to  make  his  preparation  in  this  respect  thorough.  Every 
detail  must  be  mastered;  every  rebuttal  card  must  be  so 
well  in  mind  that  a  mere  glance  will  be  sufficient  to  reveal  its 
contents.  The  reading  of  rebuttal  cards  takes  all  the  Hfe 
out  of  a  rebuttal  argument.  This  part  of  the  argument  more 
than  any  other  must  be  delivered  with  native  force  and  en- 
thusiasm. Effective  presentation  in  rebuttal  follows  only 
from  the  most  thorough  preparation. 

C.  The  summary  and  closing  plea. 

After  the  preparation  above  outHned  has  been  completed 
one  task  yet  remains.  The  debater  must  have  an  effective 
conclusion  for  his  rebuttal  speech.    He  must  not  rely  upon  a 


^144  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

«.hance  inspiration  of  the  moment.  Experience  proves  that 
for  all  but  professional  speakers,  and  oftentimes  even  for 
them,  it  is  best  to  have  a  committed  summary  or  closing 
plea.  In  the  case  of  a  debating  team  the  work  of  closing  the 
argument  should  be  left  to  the  last  speaker  in  rebuttal.  This 
summary  should  be  the  strongest  statement  that  it  is  possible 
to  produce.  All  the  main  arguments  that  have  been  presented 
should  be  summarized.  The  position  of  both  sides  of  the 
controversy  should  be  set  forth  in  clear  and  \agorous  language. 
If  questions  have  been  asked,  or  demands  have  been  made 
of  the  opposition,  a  direct  and  forcible  reference  to  the  effect 
of  these  questions  or  demands  should  be  made.  Then,  sum- 
moning all  the  powers  of  eloquent  utterance  of  which  he  has 
command,  the  speaker  should  make  a  closing  plea  for  the 
adoption  or  defeat  of  the  proposition. 

Examples  of  effective  closing  pleas  are  too  numerous  to 
need  extended  discussion.  In  debating  the  proposition  "Re- 
solved, that  the  Federal  Government  should  levy  a  progres- 
sive inheritance  tax.  Granted,  that  such  a  tax  would  be 
held  constitutional,"  the  last  speaker  for  the  affirmative 
delivered  the  following  summary: 

"We  have  asked  our  opponents,  how  will  the  enforcement 
of  present  laws  reach  the  evils  of  congested  wealth?  What 
are  the  benefits  derived  from  the  perpetuation  of  such  for- 
tunes? Where  will  you  place  the  power  of  control,  at  Wall 
Street  or  at  Washington?  Have  the  gentlemen  answered 
these  questions  to  your  satisfaction? 

"We  have  accepted  the  burden  that  devolved  upon  the 
affirmative  and  we  have  met  that  burden  by  showing  that 
the  Federal  government  needs  this  revenue  because  of  its 
rapidly  increasing  functions;  that  it  is  practicable  because 
it  has  twice  been  in  actual  operation;  and  that  as  a  Federal 
tax  it  possesses  the  qualities  of  certainty,  elasticity,  and 
regularity. 


REBUTTAL  145 

"We  have  clearly  shown  that  as  a  regulative  measure  it  is 
necessary  for  the  reasons,  that  the  perpetuation  of  swollen 
fortunes  is  productive  of  industrial  inequalities  which  are 
un-American  and  of  evils  which  it  is  beyond  the  power  of 
ordinary  legislation  to  control.  We  have  demonstrated  its 
practicability  by  proposing  a  definite  plan  which  will  remedy 
the  evil,  first,  by  actually  taking  a  part  of  these  enormous 
accumulations,  and  second,  by  compelling  their  greater  dis- 
tribution. Finally  we  set  forth  the  beneficial  effects  of  such 
a  measure  upon  public  opinion — resulting  in  the  greater 
responsibility  of  wealth  and  in  removing  the  incentive  to 
corruption. 

"In  short,  while  the  gentlemen  of  the  opposition  are  stand- 
ing as  the  champions  of  swollen  fortunes,  magnates,  and  a 
governing  aristocracy  founded  upon  wealth  and  corruption 
with  the  center  of  power  at  Wall  Street,  we  stand  for  the 
suppression  of  corruption,  the  resurrection  of  individual  op- 
portunity, and  government  by  the  great  mass  of  the  common 
people  with  the  center  of  power  at  Washington.  The  nega- 
tive would  foster  an  aristocracy;  we  would  perpetuate  de- 
mocracy. 

"We  plead,  therefore,  that  in  passing  upon  this  resolution, 
you  consider  the  welfare  of  the  whole  nation,  that  you  con- 
sider this  measure  as  legislation  complementary  to  the  regu- 
lative laws  already  enacted;  that  you  consider  the  opinions 
of  eminent  statesmen,  and  the  conservative  will  of  the  people 
— in  short,  that  you  adopt  this  resolution." 

The  conclusion  for  the  final  rebuttal  speech  should  be 
prepared  with  the  same  care  that  is  exercised  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  conclusion  for  the  main  argument.  It  differs  from 
the  latter  in  that  it  takes  more  into  account  the  arguments 
of  the  opposition.  It  is  the  last  chance  the  debater  has  to 
plead  for  his  cause,  and  he  must  make  the  most  of  his  op- 
portunity. 


146  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

II.  Presentation  of  rebuttal. 

In  the  presentation  of  rebuttal  all  the  principles  which 
are  laid  down  in  the  next  chapter  should  be  observed.  They 
are  of  equal  importance  and  apply  with  equal  force  to  both 
the  main  argument  and  the  rebuttal  speeches.  However, 
the  conditions  under  which  the  two  speeches  are  delivered 
are  very  different  and  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  we  give 
special  attention  to  the  presentation  of  rebuttal.  The  diffi- 
culty of  the  task  which  now  confronts  us  is  even  greater  than 
that  which  we  must  consider  in  connection  with  the  delivery 
of  the  main  argument.  The  qualities  of  mind  which  success 
demands  are  of  a  higher  order,  and  the  mental  exercise  in- 
volved is  of  greater  value.  The  ability  to  grasp  the  essential 
features  of  a  situation  as  it  presents  itself,  the  ability  to 
analyze  keenly  and  determine  definitely  and  without  hesi- 
tation upon  a  plain  course  of  action,  and  finally  the  power 
of  presenting  clearly  and  forcibly  the  conclusions  which 
have  been  reached,  are  all  comprised  in  the  art  of  de- 
bate. 

I.  Attention  to  argument  of  opponent. 

The  first  essential  of  rebuttal  work  is  a  keen  interest  in, 
and  attention  to,  the  opposing  argument.  It  is  impossible 
to  rebut  an  argument  which  has  not  been  heard  or  one  which 
was  not  understood.  If  the  preparation  for  rebuttal  has  been 
thorough  and  has  conformed  to  the  plan  laid  down  in  the 
first  part  of  this  chapter,  the  student  will  be  so  famihar  with 
the  possible  lines  of  discussion  that  he  will  have  no  difficulty 
in  grasping  his  opponents'  arguments.  The  debater  should 
experience  a  keen  interest  in  the  way  in  which  the  opposing 
speakers  will  present  their  arguments.  He  must  not  let  his 
mind  wander  from  the  subject  for  a  single  instant.  All  his 
mental  power  must  be  concentrated  on  the  business  in 
hand.    He  must  not  be  confused  by  any  unusual  method  of 


REBUTTAL  147 

presentation.  If  his  preparation  has  been  thorough  no  essen- 
tially new  argument  will  be  brought  forth,  although  argu- 
ments with  which  he  is  familiar  are  quite  likely  to  be  pre- 
sented in  a  form  with  which  he  is  unfamiliar.  He  must  grasp 
quickly  the  significance  of  such  arguments  and  reduce  them 
to  terms  in  which  they  are  clear  to  his  own  mind.  Then  he 
must  correlate  his  own  rebuttal  material  with  what  he  has 
heard.  He  must  see  the  relation  which  each  part  bears  to 
the  whole  and  be  able  to  weigh  the  relative  values  of  the 
contentions.  The  keynote  of  effective  rebuttal  is  keen  atten- 
tion to  the  opposing  argument. 

2.  Selecting  the  arguments  to  he  refuted. 

No  attempt  should  be  made  to  refute  everything  which 
the  opposing  speaker  presents.  In  breaking  a  chain  it  is  just 
as  effective  to  break  one  link  as  it  is  to  break  every  link. 
The  successful  debater  must  analyze  keenly  and  sift  the  es- 
sential from  the  trivial.  If  his  opponent  is  a  skilled  debater 
he  will  have  certain  definite  main  issues  and  definite  evidence 
and  reasoning.  The  task  of  refutation  is  thus  made  easy. 
The  main  issues  are  refuted  directly  by  showing  that  he  has 
not  analyzed  the  question  rightly,  or  by  showing  mistakes  in 
evidence  or  in  processes  of  reasoning.  If  his  opponent  is 
not  skilled  in  debate  his  argument  must  be  reduced  to  certain 
definite  parts  and  then  refuted  in  like  manner.  Very  often 
the  rebuttal  cards  will  contain  the  exact  arguments  presented 
by  an  opponent,  but  more  often  it  becomes  necessary  for  the 
speaker  to  select  the  vital  parts  of  the  opposing  contentions 
and  write  them  down  briefly.  He  should  be  sure  that  he 
states  the  exact  position  of  his  opponent.  Otherwise  he  is 
thrown  open  to  the  charge  of  willful  misrepresentation,  or 
carelessness,  or  lack  of  ability  in  grasping  what  has  been  said. 
Only  that  which  is  vital  should  be  selected  and  it  should  be 
written  down  either  in  clear-cut  phrases,  or  in  the  exact 


148  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

words  of  the  opponent.  The  latter  plan  is  often  most  effective 
because  it  offers  the  least  chance  for  a  dispute  as  to  what 
the  argument  really  is.  On  the  other  hand  where  the  position 
of  an  opponent  is  unmistakable,  although  somewhat  ambigu- 
ously expressed,  a  decided  advantage  is  gained  by  stating  his 
position  in  a  better  way  than  it  has  previously  been  stated. 
In  any  event  an  argument  is  not  selected  for  refutation  until 
it  has  been  set  off  from  all  subsidiary  material  by  brief,  clear 
phrasing. 

Where  several  means  of  proving  a  proposition  have  been 
presented,  but  only  one  of  them  could  in  reality  stand  as 
proof,  that  is  the  one  to  discuss  in  rebuttal.  The  debater 
should  be  constantly  on  the  lookout  for  arguments  or  evi- 
dence which  may  be  combined  under  one  heading.  By  a 
judicious  combination  of  related  arguments  the  destructive 
work  of  rebuttal  may  be  made  to  cover  a  wider  field.  Fur- 
thermore, much  can  be  done  to  widen  the  field  by  means  of 
ingeniously  arranging  the  order  of  rebuttal  arguments  in 
such  a  way  that  certain  arguments  may  be  met  by  referring 
them  to  contentions  which  have  already  been  answered.  In 
any  event  the  debater  should  arrange  his  arguments  in  their 
most  effective  order. 

When  rebuttal  is  given  in  introducing  the  main  argument, 
it  is  well  to  begin  by  answering  the  last  argument  presented 
by  the  last  speaker  for  the  opposition.  This  action  on  the 
part  of  the  debater  shows  quickness  and  ability  and  is  sure 
to  make  a  favorable  impression  on  the  hearers.  This  may 
be  followed  by  a  refutation  of  one  or  two  points  which  have 
been  especially  emphasized  by  the  preceding  speaker,  after 
which  the  debater  should  swing  naturally  and  easily  into 
his  main  constructive  argument.  Furthermore,  as  will  be 
suggested  in  connection  with  the  chapter  on  delivery,  the 
main  speech  should  be  so  adapted  to  the  contentions  of  the 
opposition  that  the  whole  constructive  argument  is  used 


REBUTTAL  I4g 

to  tear  down  the  case  of  the  opposition  as  well  as  to  be  con- 
structive of  one's  own  case. 

3.  Reading  quotations. 

The  reading  of  exact  quotations  from  authority  usually 
plays  a  very  important  part  in  a  debate.  Especially  is  this 
true  in  cases  where  a  dispute  arises  as  to  what  a  particular 
authority  says  on  the  point  at  issue.  For  example,  if  the 
controversy  hinges  on  the  exact  wording  of  a  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  the  speaker  who  produces  that  decision  and 
reads  from  it  in  the  proper  manner  has  gained  a  decided 
advantage.  The  production  of  the  large  leather  bound  book, 
in  itself,  aids  the  effect  which  it  is  the  speaker's  intention  to 
produce.  It  is  something  tangible,  something  which  the 
audience  can  see;  it  is  the  visual  symbol  of  superior  authority. 

Following  out  the  preparation  for  this  reading  which  has 
already  been  suggested,  the  student  should  turn  without 
hesitation  to  the  passage  to  be  read.  He  must  be  so  familiar 
with  the  wording  that  he  can  follow  it  with  but  an  occasional 
glance  at  the  printed  page.  He  must  still  look  directly  at 
the  audience  and  refer  to  the  book  only  for  the  purpose  of 
guiding  his  reading.  He  should  read  slowly  and  deliberately, 
emphasizing  those  parts  which  bear  directly  on  the  point  at 
issue.  If  a  statement  contradicts  flatly  the  contentions  of 
the  opposition  it  is  well  to  read  it  over  again  in  order  to  em- 
phasize it  more  forcibly. 

4.  Team  work. 

In  a  formal  contest  the  individual  debater  must  work  with 
his  team.  It  is  just  as  important  that  the  members  of  a 
debating  team  work  together  as  it  is  that  the  members  of  a 
football  team  work  together.  In  formal  debating  contests 
one  team  is  pitted  against  another  team.  It  is  not  a  struggle 
between  the  individuals  composing  the  teams  but  a  struggle 


150  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

between  the  teams  themselves.  Therefore  each  must  sacri- 
fice his  own  incUnations  for  the  good  of  the  team.  When 
there  is  a  necessity  for  rebutting  an  argument  which  has  been 
advanced  by  the  opposition,  the  next  speaker  must  rebut 
such  argument.  This  must  be  done  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  the  rebuttal  for  that  argument  is  a  pet  piece  of 
property  belonging  to  another  member  of  the  team  who  will 
speak  later  in  the  program.  This  point  cannot  be  emphasized 
too  strongly. 

5.  Treatment  of  opponents. 

The  object  of  debate  is  to  reveal  the  truth.  One  who  speaks 
in  public  on  any  question  is  under  obligation  to  inculcate 
right  principles  into  the  minds  of  his  hearers.  Vanity,  subter- 
fuge, resentment,  and  malice  have  no  place  in  debate.  Only 
the  truth  should  prevail;  and  nothing  but  the  truth  will  pre- 
vail in  the  end.  Therefore  the  attitude  of  the  debater  toward 
his  work  must  be  one  of  sincerity  and  respect.  His  whole 
personality  should  indicate  this  state  of  mind.  The  use  of 
invective,  ridicule,  or  satire  towards  one's  opponents  is  clearly 
out  of  keeping  with  this  spirit,  and  nothing  of  such  a  nature 
should  be  allowed  to  intrude  itself  into  the  discussion. 

The  day  has  passed  when  "bullyragging"  the  opposition 
passed  for  argument  and  won  the  respect  of  an  audience. 
The  simple  fact  remains  that  an  opponent's  argument,  not 
his  personality,  is  to  be  refuted.  The  moment  invective, 
ridicule,  or  satire  enter,  they  drive  out  that  spirit  of  calm 
inquiry  after  truth  which  should  be  the  controlling  spirit  of 
every  controversy.  Although  the  hearers  as  a  whole  seem  to 
acquiesce  in  a  vindictive  spirit,  laugh  at  sarcastic  comments, 
and  appear  interested  in  a  belligerent  attitude,  the  moment 
the  excitement  has  subsided  a  reaction  sets  in  and  their 
respect  for  the  speaker  who  has  amused  and  entertained  them 
in  this  way  is  dead.    If  an  opponent  has  used  these  unkind 


REBUTTAL  151 

weapons  against  you,  the  most  effective  reply  that  you  can 
make  is  to  ignore  them  and  begin  at  once  a  continuation  of 
the  discussion  in  a  plain,  orderly  manner. 

It  is  both  discourteous  and  unnecessary  to  accuse  an  op- 
ponent of  dishonesty,  or  misrepresentation.  If  he  has  really 
indulged  in  these  unfair  means  the  evidence  advanced  in 
rebuttal  will  reveal  that  fact.  When  any  difference  arises 
it  is  best  to  assume  that  the  opponent  is  honestly  mistaken. 
A  favorite  method  of  Lincoln's  was  to  show  that  his  oppo- 
nent's conclusion  appeared  to  be  right  on  the  first  considera- 
tion, but  that  a  more  extended  investigation  revealed  the 
fact  that  it  was  unsound.  Sometimes  he  even  took  great 
care  to  explain  that  he  had  himself  formerly  held  the  opinions 
which  his  opponents  were  attempting  to  defend,  and  then 
by  skillful  use  of  evidence  he  would  show  why  he  had  changed 
his  own  opinion.  In  this  way,  without  giving  offense  to  his 
opponents  or  to  his  audience,  he  was  able  in  many  cases  to 
win  them  to  his  cause  without  their  looking  upon  him  as  an 
active  agency  in  producing  the  change. 

A  debater  must  deal  honestly  with  his  opponents.  It  is 
dishonest  and  immoral  to  present  evidence  in  such  a  way 
that  it  will  appear  to  show  as  true  that  which  the  debater 
knows  to  be  untrue.  No  concealment  or  suppression  of  fact 
designed  to  mislead  the  opposition  should  be  tolerated.  Some- 
times vital  issues  are  ignored  or  an  attempt  is  made  to  con- 
ceal them  under  a  display  of  confusing  language.  Such 
methods  are  reprehensible.  Nothing  but  absolute  fairness 
in  the  treatment  of  opponents  will  gain  any  permanent  ad- 
vantage, for  even  from  the  selfish  standpoint  honesty  and 
fairness  are  best.  A  speaker  cannot  impress  his  audience 
with  his  fair-mindedness  unless  he  is  treating  his  opponents 
in  a  fair  manner.  An  appearance  of  fairness  always  gains  a 
respectful  hearing  for  a  cause.  A  man  must  be  a  man  before 
he  can  be  anything  else.    That  fine  sense  of  personal  courtesy 


152  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

which  characterizes  the  gentleman,  and  the  earnest  desire 
for  truth  which  denotes  the  scholar,  are  fundamental  req- 
uisites for  him  who  would  persuade. 

6.  The  summary  mid  closing  plea. 

After  the  debater  has  answered  what  he  conceives  to  be 
the  essential  arguments  of  the  opposition,  he  should  present 
his  final  summary.  Where  a  time  limit  is  fixed  beyond  which 
he  may  not  speak,  he  must  allow  himself  ample  time  to  de- 
liver this  closing  plea  entire.  The  necessity  of  stopping 
before  the  end  is  reached  destroys  the  sense  of  completeness 
which  this  conclusion  is  designed  to  give  the  argument.  The 
form  of  this  summary  has  been  discussed  in  a  previous  sec- 
tion. All  aids  to  a  persuasive  delivery  discussed  in  the  chapter 
on  delivering  the  argument  must  be  employed  to  give  force 
and  conviction  to  this  last  appeal.  The  end  of  the  discussion 
has  been  reached,  and  the  debater,  if  his  preparation  has  been 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  which  we  have  considered, 
has  put  forth  his  best  efforts.  All  the  weeks  or  months 
of  preparation  must  now  be  crystalized  into  one  final  effort, 
and  the  speaker  must  realize  his  own  responsibility.  He 
should  feel  sure  that  his  cause  will  triumph,  and  the  fire  and 
vigor  of  his  delivery  must  manifest  this  fact  to  the  audience. 
He  should  remember  that  he  is  fighting  for  principles  of 
right  which  are  eternal.  Even  the  defeat  of  the  moment, 
if  it  come  to  him,  should  in  no  wise  make  him  afraid.  Vic- 
tory should  not  elate,  nor  defeat  depress,  the  spirit  of  truth 
which  ever  should  be  the  sure  foundation  of  those  whose 
high  calling  it  is  to  persuade  men  to  act  in  accordance  with 
that  which  is  right. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

DELIVERING   THE   ARGUMENT 

The  Statement  is  frequently  made  by  those  well  versed  in 
the  art  of  public  speaking  that  a  poor  speech  well  delivered 
is  much  better  than  a  good  speech  poorly  deHvered.  Again 
the  statement  is  sometimes  made  that  in  judging  the  eflS- 
ciency  of  an  oral  argument,  twenty-five  per  cent  is  counted 
on  the  substance  while  seventy-five  per  cent  is  counted  on  the 
delivery.  Be  that  as  it  may,  the  delivery  of  an  argument  is 
certainly  a  most  important  factor  in  determining  its  effect 
upon  the  hearer.  Under  the  head  of  delivery  we  might  in- 
clude the  whole  field  of  public  speaking  and  oratory,  but 
since  we  are  treating  only  of  argument  we  must  confine  our 
attention  to  those  phases  of  public  speaking  which  may  be 
apphed  in  a  practical  way  to  the  oral  deUvery  of  argumen- 
tative discourse. 

I.  Methods  of  delivering  the  argument. 

I.  Reading. 

To  read  an  argument  is  certainly  the  most  ineffective  way 
to  present  it.  After  all  the  work  of  constructing  the  argu- 
ment is  accompKshed,  it  is  certainly  poor  policy  to  intrust  its 
delivery  to  the  lazy  method  of  reading  it  from  the  manuscript. 
Such  a  method  presents  all  the  disadvantages  of  speaking 
with  none  of  the  advantages  of  reading.  If  the  argument 
is  read,  the  reader  can  inform  himself  fully  of  its  contents, 
because  he  can  read  it  slowly  or  rapidly  as  he  chooses. 
Passages  which  he  does  not  thoroughly  understand  may 
be  re-read.    Moreover,  he  may  go  back  over  the  argument 

153 


154  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

and  review  its  main  points  as  well  as  scrutinize  all  the 
evidence  offered  to  support  them.  But  if  the  argument 
is  read  from  a  manuscript,  the  listener  must  receive  it 
at  the  rate  of  dehvery  which  is  chosen  by  the  reader.  He 
cannot,  as  a  general  rule,  ask  that  the  passages  which  are 
not  clear  to  him,  be  re-read,  and  at  the  end  he  is  not  per- 
mitted to  go  back  and  ponder  over  parts  which  appear  to 
him  to  be  of  doubtful  validity,  nor  can  he  very  well  question 
the  e\'idence  presented.  Furthermore,  the  reader,  being  tied 
down  to  his  manuscript,  cannot  give  the  force  or  expression 
to  the  argument  which  would  be  possible  were  he  speaking 
directly  to  the  persons  addressed.  He  cannot  see  by  the 
look  of  understanding  or  perplexity  on  their  faces,  just  what 
parts  of  his  argument  are  clear  and  what  parts  are  not  clear 
to  them.  Again,  the  sympathy  which  should  exist  between 
speaker  and  audience  is  almost  entirely  shut  out.  A  manu- 
script stands  Uke  the  Chinese  wall  between  the  speaker  and 
his  audience. 

The  defects  of  this  method  of  delivering  an  argimient  are 
pointed  out  because  there  is  a  decided  tendency  on  the  part 
of  college  men,  and  a  few  men  of  some  reputation,  to  adopt 
this  manner  of  presentation,  which  is  certainly  the  easiest 
way  but  which  is  generally  as  ineffective  as  it  is  easy.  When- 
ever it  is  important  that  real  results  be  obtained,  whether  in 
the  class  room,  in  a  formal  debate,  or  in  real  life,  this  method 
should  be  avoided. 

2.  Memorizing  the  argument  verbatim. 

The  delivery  of  a  speech  memorized  verbatim  is  certainly 
to  be  preferred  to  reading,  because  it  at  least  affords  the 
speaker  the  opportunity  of  stating  his  case  directly  to  his 
audience,  and  j  ermits  the  use  of  all  the  arts  of  declamation; 
but  since  the  speech  is  set  in  definite  form  it  precludes  the 
modification  necessary  to  adapt  the  argument  to  the  conten- 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  1$$ 

tions  advanced  by  the  opposition.  In  college  debating  this 
form  of  delivery  is  especially  objectionable  because  from  it 
the  student  derives  little  practical  benefit.  As  has  already 
been  pointed  out,  the  great  value  of  debating  lies  in  its  train- 
ing for  the  practical  affairs  of  life  by  teaching  the  student  to 
frame  his  argument  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  adapt  it  to 
the  conditions  of  the  particular  situation  which  he  is  facing, 
and  present  it  in  an  effective  manner.  All  of  these  advan- 
tages are  lost  if  the  argument  is  committed  to  memory  ver- 
batim. 

3.  Memorizing  the  argument  by  ideas. 

By  this  method  the  written  argument  which  has  been  pre- 
pared is  made  the  basis  of  the  deHvery.  It  furnishes  a  sub- 
stantial foundation  for  the  speech.  The  argument  has  gone 
through  the  process  of  construction  according  to  the  direc- 
tions heretofore  given.  It  is,  therefore,  an  eiSicient  instru- 
ment of  persuasion  and  the  greatest  results  may  be  most 
surely  obtained  by  the  method  of  memorizing  the  argument 
by  ideas.  The  three  steps  in  this  process  of  memorizing 
are  as  follows: 

First,  the  argument  should  be  read  over  slowly  several 
times  in. order  that  the  speaker  may  get  an  accurate  view 
of  the  production  as  a  whole.  In  most  cases  the  student  will 
have  this  much  accompKshed  by  the  time  he  has  written 
out  the  argument  in  final  form. 

Second,  the  central  idea  of  each  paragraph  should  be 
memorized.  As  a  general  rule,  the  paragraphs  will  conform 
to  the  topics  of  the  brief.  That  is,  each  topic  in  the  brief, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  the  lowest  sub-topic,  will  be 
developed  by  means  of  a  separate  paragraph.  The  central 
idea  will,  of  course,  be  the  thought  expressed  by  the  state- 
ment in  the  brief  which  the  paragraph  is  designed  to  de- 
velop.   However,  thit  idea  should  be  committed  in  the  form 


156  ABGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

in  which  it  appears  in  the  finished  argument,  and  not  in  the 
form  in  which  it  appears  in  the  brief.  In  this  way  each  idea 
will  be  grasped  in  its  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  argument 
as  well  as  in  its  relation  to  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been 
elaborated  in  the  paragraph.  Each  idea  presented  should 
then  be  committed  in  its  proper  order  so  that  the  speaker  can 
go  through  the  entire  argument  and  state  the  idea  expressed 
in  each  paragraph. 

Third,  the  idea  contained  in  each  sentence  of  the  para- 
graph should  be  committed  to  memory.  If  the  student  has 
honestly  constructed  his  argument  each  statement  in  it 
means  all  and  more  than  he  expressed  when  he  wrote  it  out, 
therefore  the  committing  of  the  idea  contained  in  each  sen- 
tence should  not  be  difficult.  Furthermore,  the  idea  should 
be  grasped  in  its  completeness  without  reference  to  the  words 
in  which  it  is  expressed  in  the  manuscript.  In  most  cases 
it  is  well  to  remember  the  key-w^ord  of  each  sentence,  which 
expresses  the  central  thought.  Sometimes  more  than  one 
word  is  necessary  for  this  purpose,  but  in  any  event,  only 
those  words  which  embody  the  heart  of  the  thought,  should 
be  committed.  All  subsidiary  W'Ords,  or  w^ords  explaining, 
expanding,  limiting,  or  showing  transitions  or  relations  should 
not  be  committed,  but  should  be  left  for  spontaneous  ut- 
terance at  the  moment  of  delivery. 

This  method  of  memorizing  gives  naturalness,  directness, 
and  spontaneity  to  the  delivery.  It  trains  the  speaker  to 
keep  his  mind  firmly  fixed  on  the  subject  in  hand  and  it 
ehminates  the  danger  of  that  monotony  which  is  the  result 
of  verbatim  memorizing.  Perhaps  the  most  important  ad- 
vantage of  this  method  of  delivery  is  the  fact  that  it  allows 
the  speaker  to  adapt  his  argument  to  the  contentions  of  Ms 
opponent.  Since  he  has  made  himself  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  material  of  his  argument  but  has  not  tied  himself 
to  any  set  form  of  words,  his  expression  is  flexible.    If  the 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  157 

argument  is  to  be  delivered  in  a  debate,  the  speaker  should 
practice  delivering  it  so  as  to  meet  the  various  contentions 
which  may  be  advanced  by  the  opposition.  Then  when  the 
time  comes  for  the  final  presentation,  he  will  be  prepared  to 
so  word  liis  speech  as  to  make  it  directly  applicable  to  what 
has  just  been  said  on  the  other  side.  Practice  of  this  kind 
is  needed  in  everyday  life  without  regard  to  the  occupation 
in  which  the  student  may  chance  to  engage. 

There  are  other  methods  of  delivery,  but  we  need  not  give 
them  extended  consideration.  The  argument  might  be  de- 
livered extempore  from  the  brief.  This  method  however,  is 
likely  to  be  ineffective,  since  the  speaker  does  not  express 
himself  with  definiteness  and  precision.  Furthermore,  he  is 
likely  to  occupy  a  great  deal  of  time  in  presenting  points 
which,  if  carefully  framed  in  forcible  sentences,  could  be 
stated  directly  and  briefly.  Again,  the  tendency  to  ramble 
is  great  when  the  purely  extempore  method  is  used. 

The  speaker  should  first  write  out  his  argument  even  though 
he  expects  to  follow  what  he  has  written  only  in  a  general 
way.  The  very  fact  of  his  having  written  out  the  argument 
will  tend  to  make  more  definite  his  own  ideas  of  what  he 
wishes  to  say.  It  blazes  the  trail  or  wears  a  sort  of  path 
through  the  mind  of  the  writer  from  which  he  is  not  likely 
to  deviate  far  when  the  final  delivery  is  made.  The  method 
of  extemporaneous  deUvery,  however,  is  not  well  adapted 
to  the  presentation  of  a  formal  constructive  argument,  be- 
cause it  is  too  loose  and  lacks  the  conciseness  characterizing 
the  method  of  committing  by  ideas.  After  long  periods  of 
practice  the  student  may  be  able  to  use  the  purely  extem- 
poraneous method  with  good  effect,  but  while  he  is  a  student 
he  should  keep  to  the  well-beaten  path. 

Still  another  method  of  delivery  is  to  write  out  an  intro- 
duction, a  conclusion,  and  certain  important  passages,  and 
leave  the  rest  to  extemporaneous  delivery.     This  method 


158  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

may  be  used  with  considerable  success  providing  the  time 
limit  is  not  a  consideration,  and  providing,  furthermore, 
that  the  speaker  is  an  expert  in  making  the  transitions  from 
the  committed  to  the  uncommitted  parts  of  his  speech.  With 
the  inexperienced  speaker,  this  method  usually  results  in  a 
rapid,  fiery  delivery  of  the  committed  parts  and  a  hesitating, 
stammering,  and  woefully  ineffective  deUvery  of  the  uncom- 
mitted portions.  This  attracts  the  attention  of  the  audience 
to  the  way  in  which  the  speech  has  been  prepared  and  takes 
the  attention  away  from  the  subject  of  the  debate. 

From  every  standpoint  the  method  of  committing  by  ideas 
is  by  far  the  best  for  both  the  experienced  and  the  inex- 
perienced speaker.  It  gives  him  a  command  of  his  argvmient 
which  inspires  confidence.  There  is  not  the  haimting  fear 
that  the  speech  may  be  forgotten,  a  fear  which  terrorizes 
the  heart  of  all  speakers  who  cominit  word  for  word. 

If  the  debater  chooses  he  may  have  a  full  outHne  of  his 
argument  written  out  on  cards  and  take  these  with  him  when 
he  goes  to  face  the  audience.  No  attempt  need  be  made  to 
hide  these  notes,  for  they  are  a  legitimate  safeguard  against 
emergencies.  They  should  be  carried  boldly  and  laid  on  a 
table  near  the  speaker  so  that  he  can  refer  to  them  readily 
if  occasion  demands.  He  should  never  take  cards  or  notes 
from  his  pocket.  Such  an  action  always  gives  the  audience 
the  impression  that  the  speaker  is  trying  to  do  something 
which  is  beyond  his  powers.  The  notes  should  be  referred 
to  deliberately  and  only  when  it  is  absolutely  necessary.  To 
refer  too  often  to  notes  indicates  a  lack  of  thorough  prepara- 
tion and  makes  an  unfavorable  impression.  The  notes  should 
be  ready  for  use,  but  they  should  seldom  be  used.  In  fact, 
the  best  speakers  usually  leave  their  notes  untouched. 

II.  Physical  preparation  for  delivery. 

Much  harm  results  from  the  advice  so  frequently  given  to 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  159 

the  debater  which  counsels  him  to  be  natural.  If  accepted 
in  its  proper  significance  this  advice  is  sound  and  accords 
well  with  common  sense.  Too  often,  however,  it  is  taken  as 
a  hcense  to  disregard  all  rules  of  physical  training  for  public 
speaking,  and  to  give  no  thought  to  physical  appearance  and 
action  while  on  the  platform.  On  the  contrary  these  things 
are  highly  important.  In  a  sense,  physical  preparation  is 
composed  of  trifles;  such  as,  matters  of  position,  gesture, 
and  so  forth.  But  it  is  these  things  that  make  for  perfection, 
and  we  are  told  with  truth  that  perfection  is  no  trifle.  The 
person  who  tells  the  inexperienced  debater  to  be  natural 
has  failed  to  distinguish  between  natural  and  habitual.  James 
Fox  may  have  acquired  a  bad  habit  of  standing,  when  before 
an  audience,  with  all  his  weight  on  one  foot.  We  are  then 
erroneously  told  that  that  is  his  natural  way  of  standing 
because  he  always  stands  that  way.  On  the  contrary,  that 
is  his  habitual  way  of  standing,  for  no  normal  individual 
naturally  stands  with  all  his  weight  thrown  upon  one  foot. 
Such  bad  habits  must  be  overcome  and  good  habits  formed 
and  strengthened.  Then,  and  then  only,  may  we  safely  in- 
struct the  debater  to  be  natural. 

I.  Position. 

The  position  of  the  debater  on  the  platform  should  indicate 
ease  and  dignity  of  bearing.  It  should  give  him  an  appear- 
ance of  stability  and  should  make  easy  and  natural  the  use 
of  gestures.  The  speaker  should  not  stand  rigidly  throughout 
his  delivery  in  the  same  position  which  he  first  took.  He 
should  move  easily  about  the  platform,  and  all  movements 
should  be  made  deHberately,  not  abruptly.  The  position 
should  not  be  changed  too  often  but  when  a  change  is  desired 
the  speaker  shoidd  not  turn  away  from  his  audience  or  move 
sideways  along  the  platform;  he  should  move  back  and  up 
again  in  a  V-shaped  course. 


l6o  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

The  object  of  these  suggestions  is  to  enable  the  speaker  to 
acquire  ease  and  naturalness  of  bearing,  for  nothing  should 
be  done  in  a  stiff,  formal  manner.  Every  position  and  move- 
ment should  be  so  natural  and  spontaneous  that  the  attention 
of  the  audience  will  not  be  diverted  to  the  personal  eccentrici- 
ties of  the  speaker  but  will  follow  uninterruptedly  the  prog- 
ress of  his  argument. 

2.  Voice. 

There  is  no  set  way  of  addressing  the  audience.  Good 
form  and  manners  vary  with  the  locaUty.  Neither  is  there 
a  set  method  of  delivering  an  argument.  Individual  peculiari- 
ties vary  so  widely  and  the  style  of  delivery  adapted  to  the 
personahty  of  the  debater  is  so  difficult  to  attain  that  we 
can  only  point  out  the  most  common  faults  and  explain  gen- 
eral rules  regarding  deUvery.  The  best  training  in  actual 
practice  is  debating  under  the  direction  of  a  competent  in- 
structor. 

The  voice  of  the  speaker  should  be  clear  and  strong.  We 
cannot  give  here  any  complete  treatment  of  the  methods  of 
vocal  training  which  make  the  voice  clear  and  strong,  but, 
where  opportunity  affords,  the  student  of  debate  should  have 
a  thorough  training  in  the  art  of  public  speaking.  Singing, 
under  proper  instruction,  will  also  improve  the  volume  and 
quality  of  the  voice  as  well  as  give  the  speaker  greater  voice 
control.  A  few  practical  suggestions  regarding  the  use  of  the 
voice  may  be  given  some  attention  at  this  point. 

It  has  been  said  that  breath  is  the  stuff  of  which  the  voice 
is  made.  Attention  must  therefore  be  given  to  proper  breath- 
ing. The  entire  lung  capacity  should  be  used.  The  breath 
should  be  directed  through  the  vocal  chords  so  as  to  produce 
a  pure  tone.  The  speaker  should  remember  to  keep  the 
throat  muscles  relaxed  and  the  tongue,  jaws,  and  lips  out  of 
the  way.    These  organs  of  speech  are  to  be  used  to  mould  into 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  l6l 

clear-cut  words  the  stream  of  sound  issuing  from  the  vocal 
chords.  Their  function  is  not  to  suppress  sound  but  to 
modify  it. 

Words  should  be  formed  as  near  the  lips  as  it  is  possible 
to  make  them.  The  speaker  must  not  fear  to  open  his  mouth 
and  articulate  distinctly.  Most  words  should  be  formed 
just  back  of  the  front  teeth.  So  formed,  the  sound  is  thrown 
out  with  force  and  resonance,  for  the  hard  palate  or  roof  of 
the  mouth  is  a  natural  sounding  board.  If  the  speaker  forms 
his  words  far  back  in  his  mouth  they  issue  only  in  incoherent 
mutterings.  Since  an  argument  must  be  heard  to  be  be- 
lieved, the  most  thorough  preparation  up  to  this  point  may 
be  entirely  offset  by  a  poor  delivery.  The  enunciation  of 
the  speaker  should  be  so  clear  and  distinct  that  the  attention 
of  those  addressed  will  be  fixed  upon  what  he  is  saying,  not 
upon  the  way  in  which  he  is  saying  it. 

Every  word  should  be  pronounced  distinctly.  Vagueness 
in  delivery  is  just  as  harmful  as  vagueness  in  language  or 
substance.  If  one  word  in  a  sentence  is  pronounced  so  in- 
effectively that  it  is  not  understood,  it  may  be  impossible 
for  the  person  hearing  that  sentence  to  grasp  its  meaning. 
In  any  event  it  requires  the  listener  to  make  the  mental  effort 
of  figuring  out  what  the  sentence  means,  and  this  mental 
effort  tires  the  hearer,  prevents  him  from  giving  his  undivided 
attention  to  the  substance  of  the  argument,  and  ultimately 
results  in  his  losing  all  interest  in  the  discussion.  It  is  there- 
fore plain  that  clear  enunciation  is  a  matter  of  fundamental 
importance. 

A  clear,  resonant  voice  is  in  itself  a  valuable  asset  for  the 
debater.  It  inspires  respect  and  denotes  self-reliance.  How- 
ever, loudness  should  not  be  confused  with  distinctness,  for 
mere  loudness  often  accentuates,  rather  than  remedies  poor 
articulation.  The  world  at  large  is  more  ready  to  believe  a 
person  who  has  a  clear-cut,  distinct  way  of  speaking  than  it 


l62  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

is  to  believe  one  who  utters  his  words  in  a  slovenly  manner. 
It  is  often  true  that  slovenly  habits  of  speech  indicate  slovenly 
habits  of  thinking  and  even  slovenly  morals.  The  habit  of 
using  the  voice  effectively,  however,  is  not  one  which  can 
be  put  on  and  taken  off  at  will.  The  voice  must  be  used  cor- 
rectly in  everyday  conversation  as  well  as  in  formal  debating. 

3.  Emphasis. 

The  debater  must  make  plain  the  important  parts  of  his 
argument  by  means  of  emphasis.  In  speaking,  as  in  writing, 
it  is  useless  to  try  to  emphasize  everything.  Only  those  parts 
which  have  been  emphasized  in  writing  out  the  argument 
should  be  emphasized  in  delivering  it.  An  attempt  to  em- 
phasize everything  results  in  no  emphasis  at  all.  The  speaker 
should  therefore  study  his  argument  carefully  and  pick  out 
the  parts  wlaich  are  indispensable  to  liis  position.  The  au- 
dience will  not  perform  this  task  of  picking  out  the  most 
important  passages;  the  speaker  must  do  it  himself.  In  the 
delivery  these  parts  should  be  emphasized  by  means  of  ges- 
tures, by  speaking  them  more  slowly  and  dehberately,  or 
by  any  other  legitimate  method. 

4.  Key,  rate,  and  infection. 

The  debater  should  speak  in  his  average  key.  By  key  we 
mean  the  pitch  of  the  voice  in  speaking.  By  average  key  is 
meant  that  key  to  which  the  voice  of  the  particular  indi- 
vidual is  especially  adapted.  Average  key  should  not  be 
confused  with  habitual  key.  One  may  easily  acquire  the 
habit  of  speaking  either  above  or  below  the  average  key.  The 
tendency  of  the  inexperienced  orator  is  usually  to  speak  in  a 
key  which  is  too  high.  This  defect  is  tiresome  to  both  au- 
dience and  speaker  and  should  be  overcome  at  any  cost,  for 
the  debater  should  speak  in  a  key  which  is  easy  and  natural. 
This  enables  him  to  derive  the  benefit  of  full  inflection  both 
upward  and  downward,  and  bestows  confidence  and  ease. 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  163 

A  common  fault  of  the  inexperienced  speaker  is  a  too  rapid 
rate  of  delivery.  In  the  beginning  of  the  speech  it  is  especially 
important  that  every  word  be  spoken  slowly  and  distinctly. 
At  no  part  of  the  speech  should  the  rate  be  so  rapid  as  to 
prevent  the  audience  from  grasping  the  full  significance  of 
what  is  being  said.  The  average  rate  of  delivery  has  been 
computed  to  be  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  words  per 
minute,  allowing  for  pauses  and  transitions;  but  the  rate 
should  vary  according  to  the  speaker,  the  subject,  and  the 
audience.  First  of  all  the  rate  should  be  adapted  to  the 
thought  and  to  the  emotion.  Simple  ideas  can  be  presented 
rapidly,  while  complex  ideas  must  be  presented  slowly.  In 
all  cases  the  audience  should  be  given  ample  time  to  grasp 
the  ideas  presented.  With  this  caution  in  mind  the  speaker 
may  dwell  upon  the  important  thoughts  and  emotions  and 
pass  hghtly  and  quickly  over  the  unimportant.  Thought 
and  emotion  must  be  fully  appreciated  by  the  speaker  at 
the  time  of  deUvery,  and  this  appreciation  should  be  indicated 
in  part  by  the  rate  of  speaking.  In  general  it  may  be  said 
that  the  emotions  of  awe,  grandeur,  reverence,  sorrow,  etc., 
should  be  voiced  with  a  slow  movement,  while  emotions  of 
joy,  anger,  indignation,  enthusiasm,  etc.,  should  be  voiced 
with  a  rapid  movement.  However  the  student  should  be 
careful  to  avoid  either  a  jerky  or  a  drawling  delivery.  These 
faults  are  due  usually  to  a  failure  to  dwell  upon  the  vowel 
sounds.  No  set  rule  can  be  estabhshed,  but  all  of  these  things 
should  be  considered  by  the  speaker  when  he  is  preparing 
to  dehver  his  argument. 

Inflection  should  be  used  to  give  variety  to  the  argument, 
to  bring  out  the  special  significance  of  important  passages, 
and  to  show  the  bearing  which  the  evidence  has  upon  the 
general  principles.  The  amateur  speaker  usually  varies  his 
inflection  according  to  the  punctuation.  This  is  not  a  safe 
rule  to  follow.     The  faUing  inflection  indicates  that  the 


i64  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

thought  is  complete,  but  not  that  the  end  of  the  sentence  has 
been  reached.  In  argumentative  speaking  the  falling  inflec- 
tion is  most  frequently  used  because  it  indicates  positive 
assertion.  It  denotes  confidence  in  what  is  being  said.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  rising  inflection  denotes  doubt,  indecision, 
negation,  or  appeal.  It  is  often  necessary  to  express  all  of 
these  attitudes  in  delivering  an  argument;  but  the  falling 
inflection,  which  denotes  a  positive  statement,  should  pre- 
dominate. 

5.  Gesture. 

The  memorizing  of  gestures  is  as  ineffective  as  is  the  mem- 
orizing of  words.  Both  tend  to  make  the  delivery  mechanical 
and  hence  should  be  carefully  avoided.  The  student  should 
never  pick  out  certain  emphatic  parts  in  his  discourse  and 
seek  to  emphasize  them  by  means  of  gestures  which  he  has 
studied  out  and  practiced.  In  fact  gesturing  is  not  a  neces- 
sity in  the  delivering  of  an  argument.  It  is  certain  that  poor 
gesturing  is  worse  than  none  at  all.  Gestures  add  to  the 
effectiveness  of  an  argument  only  when  they  are  simple  and 
natural.  As  a  general  rule  they  are  natural  only  when  they 
are  made  spontaneously.  Here,  again,  practice  before  a 
competent  instructor,  or  at  least  before  a  sensible  critic,  is 
indispensable.  Every  gesture  that  is  made  must  appear  as  a 
natural  effort  to  be  understood  and  believed. 

The  student  should  learn  to  use  gestures,  not  in  connection 
with  any  particular  argument  but  in  connection  with  the 
expression  of  his  own  thought  and  feeling.  Here,  again,  the 
instruction  to  be  natural  may  prove  misleading.  The  speaker 
may  be  naturally  awkward,  or  at  least  his  gesturing  may  be 
awkward,  and  thus  produce  only  a  desire  to  laugh  on  the 
part  of  the  audience.  This  natural  awkwardness  must  be 
overcome  and  replaced  by  a  natural  gracefulness.  The 
gestures  used  in  argumentation  need  not  be  elaborate,  in 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  165 

fact  simple  gestures  are  more  effective.  The  gesture  should 
seem  to  be  a  part  of  the  thought  or  emotion,  and  training 
should  be  resorted  to  only  for  the  purpose  of  securing  natural- 
ness, gracefulness,  and  ease.  In  gesturing,  only  that  which 
is  natural  in  the  right  way,  that  which  enforces  the  thought 
instead  of  diverting  attention  from  it,  is  effective. 

6.  Transitions. 

The  transition  from  one  part  of  the  speech  to  another 
should  be  clearly  indicated.  In  constructing  the  argument 
these  transition  points  were  made  plain  by  means  of  transi- 
tion sentences  showing  the  division  between  the  introduction 
and  the  proof,  the  main  issues  of  the  proof  and  each  subordi- 
nate issue,  and  the  proof  and  conclusion.  When  the  argument 
is  to  be  delivered,  however,  the  delivery  should  make  these 
transition  points  stand  out  like  white  mile  posts.  In  tliis 
way  two  advantages  are  gained.  First,  the  structure  of  the 
argument  is  vividly  impressed  upon  the  mind  of  the  hearer. 
Second,  these  transitions  break  the  monotony  of  the  speech 
and  keep  alive  the  interest  of  the  audience.  In  beginning 
each  new  main  issue,  and  often  in  beginning  the  presentation 
of  an  important  piece  of  evidence,  the  speaker  should  drop 
to  the  conversational  tone.  He  should  talk  directly  to  his 
audience  as  though  it  were  an  individual.  Then  he  should 
gradually  increase  the  force  of  his  delivery  until  he  is  speaking 
in  his  strongest  persuasive  manner.  This  method  gives 
variety  to  the  argument,  and  thus  prevents  it  from  growing 
monotonous.  Furthermore,  it  insures  a  better  appreciation 
of  the  argument  as  a  whole. 

Other  devices  which  may  be  used  in  connection  with  the 
above  method  for  marking  transitions  are,  (i)  varying  the 
inflections,  (2)  changing  the  rate  of  deUvery,  (3)  using  ap- 
propriate gestures,  (4)  changing  the  mode  of  emphasis,  (5) 
making  use  of  pauses,  and  (6)  changing  position  on  the  plat- 


i66 


ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 


form.  All  of  these  devices  must  be  used  with  skill  and  ease. 
Nothing  should  appear  abrupt  and  fantastic,  but  each  part 
of  the  speech  should  be  made  to  blend  gracefully  with  the 
whole  argument. 

7.  Presenting  charts. 

In  presenting  a  series  of  statistics  the  necessity  for  large 
charts,  which  may  be  hung  up  at  the  back  of  the  platform  and 
explained  by  the  speaker,  is  almost  absolute.  No  audience 
can  keep  in  mind  a  mass  of  statistics.  The  oral  presentation 
of  figures  makes  Httle  real  impression  upon  the  minds  of  the 
hearers  and  serves  to  confuse  rather  than  to  enlighten.  There- 
fore these  figures  must  be  presented  so  that  the  audience 
can  see  them.  Statistics  should  be  carefully  tabulated  in 
accordance  with  the  following  form: 


Real  Estate 

Personal 
Property 

United  States 

77:13 
71:50 
86:60 
70:77 
74:09 
46:81 

22:87 
28:50 
13:40 
29:23 
25:91 
53:19 

New  England  States 

Middle  States 

Southern  States 

Western  States 

Territories 

Source:     United    States    Census    Report — 1880 — 
Vol.  VII— pp.  17. 

The  chart  and  the  letters  and  figures  upon  it  should  be  large 
enough  to  be  seen  clearly  by  all  auditors. 

To  set  forth  tables  of  statistics  is  not  the  only  use  to  which 
these  charts  may  be  put.  They  may  be  used  to  illustrate 
territorial  conditions  by  means  of  maps,  to  show  comparisons 
by  means  of  Unes,  squares,  or  circles,  and  for  as  many  other 
purposes  as  the  ingenuity  of  the  speaker  can  invent.     In 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  167 

formal  debating  contests  a  set  of  carefully  prepared  charts 
usually  gives  a  distinct  advantage  to  their  possessors.  They 
stand  for  something  definite,  something  which  the  judges  and 
audience  may  see  with  their  own  eyes.  These  charts  may  be 
hung  up  and  left  open,  but  it  is  often  better  to  have  a  thin 
sheet  of  paper  pinned  over  them.  When  a  chart  is  to  be 
used  either  the  speaker  or  one  of  his  colleagues  may  remove 
the  sheet  of  paper.  It  should  then  be  left  open  to  the 
gaze  of  the  audience  throughout  the  entire  discussion.  If 
several  charts  are  used  and  all  of  them  cannot  be  left  ex- 
posed to  view,  the  meet  important  one  should  be  placed  in 
the  favored  position. 

In  explaining  a  chart  the  speaker  should  make  use  of  his 
most  conversational  delivery.  He  should  take  a  light  pointer 
in  the  hand  nearest  the  chart  and  direct  the  attention  of  his 
hearers  to  the  figures  as  he  states  them.  In  doing  this  the 
speaker  should  always  face  the  audience  and  talk  to  them 
instead  of  to  the  chart.  He  should  be  so  familiar  with  the 
material  on  the  chart  that  he  needs  only  to  glance  at  it  for 
the  purpose  of  directing  attention  to  each  new  figure  as  he 
starts  to  explain  its  significance.  A  carefully  prepared  chart, 
clearly  explained  in  accordance  with  the  foregoing  directions, 
is  a  valuable  aid  to  interest  and  clearness  in  the  delivery  of 
any  argument. 

III.  Mental  preparation  for  delivery. 

In  the  last  section  we  concerned  ourselves  with  matters 
relating  to  the  form  of  delivery;  with  things  primarily 
physical.  We  now  turn  to  the  substance  of  delivery  and  con- 
sider things  primarily  mental.  The  attitude  of  mind  which 
the  speaker  maintains  toward  his  subject  and  his  auditors 
is  a  powerful  factor  in  persuasion. 

I.  Directness. 
Clear,  intense  thinking  should  always  accompany  the  de- 


l68  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

livery  of  an  argument.  The  mental  attitude  of  the  speaker 
must  be  one  of  alert,  business-like  attention.  With  the 
attention  of  the  speaker  riveted  upon  the  object  of  his 
argument,  the  audience  will  be  compelled  to  follow  him 
straight  to  the  conclusion.  The  simple  directness  of  the 
speaker  who  keeps  his  mind  firmly  fixed  on  his  subject  is 
irresistible. 

No  ostentation  or  striving  after  effect  should  be  allowed  to 
hold  a  place  in  the  speaker's  thoughts,  for  the  day  of  bom- 
bastic oratory  is  passed.  This  is  a  practical  age;  the  world 
demands  results,  and  results  demand  directness.  Simplicity 
of  thought  begets  simpHcity  of  expression,  and  the  orator 
with  but  a  single  idea  underlying  his  argument  has  this 
irresistible  power. 

In  delivering  the  argument  the  debater  must  forget  him- 
self, so  far  as  his  preparation  and  personality  are  concerned, 
and  think  only  of  what  he  is  saying.  The  simple  conversa- 
tional style  in  which  two  persons  discuss  a  subject  of  vital 
interest  to  them  is  usually  direct.  This  directness  comes 
from  the  vital  interest  of  the  speakers  and  their  desire  to 
make  their  ideas  plain.  The  same  conversational  directness 
should  exist  in  debating.  Very  often  the  speaker  can  obtain 
greater  directness  by  picking  out  two  or  three  people  in 
various  parts  of  the  audience  and  talking  to  them.  In  a 
formal  debating  contest  the  debater  sometimes  picks  out 
the  judges  and  talks  to  them.  The  use  of  this  method  does 
not  ignore  the  rest  of  the  audience,  because  the  debater  is 
speaking  to  the  audience  as  a  whole,  and  it  does  give  force 
and  directness  to  the  delivery. 

The  greatest  orators  of  modem  times  have  been  noted  for 
their  simpKcity  and  natural  directness.  In  fact,  this  was 
clearly  the  predominating  characteristic  of  the  style  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  and  Wendell  Phillips;  and  even  Webster, 
highly  endowed  as  he  was  with  natural  attributes  which 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  169 

made  his  style  grand  rather  than  simple,  was  above  all  else 
noted  for  his  directness. 

2.  Earnestness. 

Earnestness  is  the  basis  of  persuasion.  The  man  who  is 
in  earnest  about  anything  is  bound  to  accomplish  something. 
By  this  earnestness  we  do  not  mean  that  which  is  assumed 
for  the  occasion,  but  that  earnestness  which  comes  from  deep 
convictions.  Without  the  quality  of  earnestness  the  debater 
becomes  a  mere  speaker  of  words.  For  any  particular  occa- 
sion, the  speaker  should  prepare  himself  by  forming  in  his 
own  mind  strong  convictions  regarding  his  subject.  In  formal 
debating  a  speaker  is  sometimes  compelled  to  argue  against 
his  convictions.  In  such  a  case  the  best  he  can  do  is  to  present 
his  position.  As  a  general  rule  the  questions  discussed  in 
class  and  debating  contests  are  so  evenly  balanced  and  so 
broad  in  their  application  that  to  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion 
requires  more  investigation  than  the  ordinary  debater  can 
well  undertake.  The  debater  should,  therefore,  be  content 
to  fulfil  his  function  as  a  defender  of  the  truth.  He  should 
make  his  investigation  thorough  before  championing  any 
cause  in  real  life.  Having  found  the  proper  cause  for  the 
exercise  of  his  skill  he  must  first  convince  himself  of  its  worth ; 
then  only  can  he  present  his  case  with  the  earnestness  of 
conviction. 

In  general  the  mental  preparation  of  the  speaker  who 
strives  for  earnestness  must  begin  far  back  in  his  career. 
Sincerity  is  not  something  which  can  be  brought  out  for 
parade  on  special  occasions.  The  orator  who  wishes  to  im- 
press his  fellow  men  with  his  sincerity  must  in  all  his  thoughts 
and  actions  be  sincere  himself.  If  this  fundamental  prepara- 
tion in  common  integrity  does  not  exist  within  the  speaker, 
that  fact  will  be  recognized  by  his  audience.  His  words  will 
carry  neither  weight  nor  conviction  because  the  hearer  must 


I70  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

inevitably  declare  with  Emerson  "What  you  are  speaks  so 
loud,  I  cannot  hear  what  you  say." 

The  earnestness  of  the  speaker  must  be  the  result  of  high 
principles,  lofty  character,  and  a  firm  and  sincere  conviction 
of  the  worth  of  his  cause.  He  must  have  a  deep  sympathy 
with  his  cause  and  with  his  auditors.  He  must  possess  a  wide 
knowledge  of  human  nature  which  will  enable  him  to  appeal 
to  the  emotions  of  his  hearers  in  a  sympathetic  manner.  He 
must  take  their  point  of  view  and  feel  as  he  would  have  them 
feel  in  regard  to  his  subject.  Then  all  the  force  of  his  being 
will  awake  to  fortify  and  render  invincible  his  argument. 
In  this  way  it  will  become  a  conquering  instrument  of  per- 
suasion. The  arts  of  the  orator  must  be  employed  to  lead 
men,  not  to  drive  them.  The  speaker  must  take  the  attitude 
that  he  is  merely  one  of  his  audience  who  has  found  out 
something  worth  while  and  who  earnestly  desires  to  share 
his  discovery  with  his  neighbors.  Anything  approaching  a 
patronizing  air,  or  an  "I  am  holier  (or  wiser)  than  thou 
attitude,"  is  fatal  to  sympathy  and  earnestness.  He  should 
follow  the  simple  direct  method  of  taking  his  hearers  into 
his  confidence  and  talking  to  them  as  though  he  feels  that 
they  are  as  wise  and  good  as  himself.  He  should  watch  the 
expressions  of  sympathy  or  hostility  on  their  faces  and  lead 
them  quietly  along  the  road  of  earnestness,  the  end  of  which 
is  persuasion. 

3,  Confidence. 

The  speaker's  confidence  in  himself  and  in  his  cause  should 
be  absolute.  The  time  for  hesitation  and  self-questioning 
has  passed  when  the  speaker  stands  before  his  audience. 
Then  he  should  feel  himself  master  of  the  situation.  He 
must  take  the  attitude  of  mind  which  befits  an  expert  or  a 
professional.  By  this  we  do  not  mean  an  ostentatious  show 
of  knowledge  or  insolent  superiority.    The  directions  con- 


DELIVERING  THE  ARGUMENT  171 

tained  in  the  last  section  should  be  a  sufficient  guarantee 
against  such  an  attitude.  But  the  speaker  must  honestly 
think  that  he  is  engaged  in  an  important  and  commendable 
undertaking  and  that  he  has  the  abihty  to  carry  it  through 
successfully.  In  order  to  do  this  he  must  assume  an  attitude 
of  unbiased  fairness  and  honesty.  His  manner  should  indicate 
that  he  feels  himself  responsible  for  the  truth.  He  must  never 
appear  to  be  conceaUng  anything  from  his  hearers,  nor  should 
he  appear  to  be  taking  advantage  of  his  opponents  or  depriv- 
ing them  of  any  credit  to  which  they  are  justly  entitled. 
Never  should  he  misquote  an  opponent  or  put  an  unfavorable 
interpretation  upon  what  that  opponent  has  said.  An  au- 
dience loves  fair  play  and  the  knowledge  that  he  is  making  a 
fair  fight,  with  everything  above  board,  gives  confidence  to 
the  speaker. 

A  speaker  should  always  exercise  self-control.  At  no  time 
shoiild  he  put  all  his  force  into  the  language  which  he  uses. 
He  should  always  maintain  a  reserve  force  which  will  give  a 
background  of  power  to  his  delivery.  Never  should  he  allow 
his  temper  to  be  ruffled  by  anything  that  may  happen  during 
the  discussion;  to  indulge  in  an  outburst  of  temper  is  posi- 
tively beUttHng.  Washington's  advice  to  young  men  was 
"Conquer  the  territory  under  your  own  hat."  This  is  an 
apt  expression  for  the  debater  to  keep  constantly  in  mind. 
The  complete  self-reUance  which  puts  the  speaker  at  his 
ease  is  acquired  only  by  practice.  In  fact,  many  great  speak- 
ers have  gone  through  life  facing  a  period  of  nervousness 
just  before  appearing  before  their  audiences.  This  trait, 
however,  is  not  necessarily  an  evil.  The  speaker  should 
always  appreciate  the  importance  of  the  occasion  and  his  own 
responsibihty.  If  he  does  this  to  the  extent  of  having  his 
emotions  aroused  it  often  makes  his  dehvery  more  direct, 
earnest,  and  confident.  The  point  to  be  remembered  is  that 
he  must  have  that  confidence  which  convinces  his  hearers 


172  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

that  his  argument  is  the  result  of  clean,  clear-cut  thinking, 
and  persuades  them  to  act  in  accordance  with  the  truth  which 
that  argument  reveals. 

The  power  of  a  speaker  does  not  exist  in  the  development 
of  any  one  trait.  He  must  study  methods  of  delivery,  and 
must  not  weary  of  painstaking  physical  and  mental  prepara- 
tion. Back  of  all  of  this  must  be  the  man  himself,  entrenched 
in  mental  and  moral  strength.  No  defect  is  too  triiiing  to  be 
overcome  by  constant  vigilance,  no  improvement  so  unim- 
portant as  not  to  merit  the  most  arduous  striving.  The 
student  who  is  ambitious  to  acquire  the  art  of  persuasion 
should  practice  constantly  and  neglect  no  opportunity  to 
appear  before  an  audience.  For  every  principle  gleaned  from 
these  pages  the  debater  must  provide  himself  with  ninety- 
nine  opportunities  for  practice.  It  is  only  by  actual  practice 
that  anyone  can  hope  to  travel  far  along  the  road  which 
leads  to  the  goal  of  perfection. 


PART  II 
THE  THEORY  OF  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 


CHAPTER  I 

INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT 

All  persons  of  average  intelligence  and  education  are  able 
to  distinguish  an  obviously  sound  argument  from  an  ob- 
viously false  argument.  No  knowledge  of  argumentation 
or  logic  is  necessary  to  enable  such  persons  to  perceive  the 
truth  of  one  or  the  falsity  of  the  other.  However,  the  line 
which  separates  the  true  from  the  false,  or  the  sound  from 
the  unsound,  is  not  always  clearly  marked.  In  fact  most 
arguments  involve  a  consideration  of  so  many  factors  that 
their  truth  or  falsity  is  very  difficult  to  determine.  It  is  for 
this  reason  that  we  must  study  the  various  theoretical  forms 
in  which  an  argument  may  be  presented. 

I.  The  application  of  processes  of  reasoning  to  argumen- 
tation. 

Logic  deals  with  the  formal  process  of  reasoning.  It  tests 
the  validity  of  a  reasoning  process  by  applying  certain  prin- 
ciples which  will  reveal  its  strength  or  weakness.  It  is  not 
essential  to  know  the  science  of  logic  in  order  to  reason  or 
to  argue  well.  Many  of  our  most  profound  thinkers  have 
possessed  only  a  superficial  knowledge  of  that  subject.  A 
knowledge  of  the  forms  of  reasoning  which  logic  considers, 
or  of  the  names  appKed  to  them,  is  by  no  means  indispensable 
to  an  intelligent  argument  or  debate.  Nevertheless,  an  exact 
knowledge  of  logical  processes  of  reasoning  as  applied  to  the 
construction  of  arguments  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  him 
who  would  become  master  of  the  Art  of  Argumentation  and 
Debate. 

I7S 


176  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

There  are  two  uses  to  which  the  debater  must  put  these 
correct  processes  of  reasoning.  In  the  first  place,  he  must 
use  them  to  test  the  vaHdity  of  his  own  arguments.  In  the 
second  place,  he  must  use  them  to  test  the  validity  of  his 
opponents'  arguments.  Both  of  these  uses  will  suggest  to  the 
mind  of  the  student  the  importance  of  the  appUcation  of 
processes  of  reasoning  to  argumentation. 

An  argument  is  seldom  presented  in  such  a  form  that  it  is 
possible  to  apply  logical  reasoning  processes  to  it  as  it  stands. 
Usually  some  parts  are  omitted  and  others  are  expanded  or 
modified  for  the  purpose  of  greater  effect  in  persuasion.  The 
student  must  therefore  grasp  the  essential  parts  of  his  argu- 
ment before  he  can  arrange  them  in  the  formal  manner  which 
logic  demands.  This  very  exercise  of  cutting  up  a  discussion 
into  parts  for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  it  is  rightly 
constructed  is  a  mental  exercise  of  unusual  value.  Further- 
more, it  reveals  any  weak  places  in  the  argument  and  shows 
where  it  must  be  made  strong  if  it  is  to  be  effective.  In  like 
manner  the  debater  is  able  to  apply  the  same  processes  to  the 
arguments  of  his  opponents  to  show  their  weaknesses  and 
enable  him  to  direct  his  efforts  toward  these  vulnerable 
points. 

II.  Inductive  reasoning. 

Inductive  reasoning  is  the  process  by  which  we  arrive  at 
a  general  conclusion  through  the  observation  of  concrete 
particulars,  I  have  read  Treasure  Island  and  I  found 
it  interesting.  Moreover,  I  have  read  Kidnapped,  David 
Balfour,  Prince  Otto,  and  St.  Ives,  all  of  which  were  interest- 
ing to  me.  All  of  these  books  were  written  by  Robert 
Louis  Stevenson,  and  after  I  had  read  them  I  arrived  at  the 
general  conclusion  that  all  books  written  by  Robert  Louis 
Stevenson  were  interesting.  I  made  use  of  this  conclusion 
by  searching  in  the  Ubrary  for  other  books  by  this  same 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  177 

author,  for  I  felt  sure  that  if  I  could  find  another  of  his  books 
it  would  be  interesting.  However,  we  are  not  now  concerned 
with  the  uses  to  be  made  of  this  process  of  reasoning,  but 
rather  with  its  exact  form.  The  process  by  which  I  arrived 
at  the  conclusion  that  all  of  Stevenson's  works  are  interesting 
is  a  fair  example  of  inductive  reasoning.  I  had  five  specific 
instances  all  pointing  to  the  same  conclusion.  I  had  observed 
five  of  Stevenson's  books  and  I  reached  a  conclusion  regarding 
all  of  them.  The  conclusion  included  those  which  I  had  not 
read  as  well  as  those  which  I  had  read.  This  process  conforms 
to  our  definition  that  inductive  reasoning  is  the  process  by 
which  we  arrive  at  a  general  conclusion  through  the  observa- 
tion of  concrete  particulars. 

In  this  way  we  arrive  at  many  conclusions  upon  which  we 
rely  in  our  daily  life.  We  go  to  a  certain  place  at  ten  minutes 
past  the  hour  for  the  purpose  of  boarding  a  street  car  which 
will  take  us  to  the  city.  We  do  this  because  for  many  months 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  go  to  this  same  place  at  this 
particular  time  and  there  we  have  always  found  a  street  car 
which  took  us  to  the  city.  Each  one  of  the  instances  in 
which  we  have  done  this  is  a  concrete  particular  tending  to 
support  the  general  conclusion  that  if  we  go  to  a  certain 
place  at  a  certain  time  we  shall  find  a  car  which  will  take  us 
to  the  city. 

A  further  investigation  of  this  process  of  inductive  reason- 
ing reveals  the  fact  that  it  may  be  divided  into  two  sharply 
defined  classes,  (i)  perfect  inductions,  and  (2)  imperfect 
inductions.  A  perfect  induction  is  one  in  which  all  the  par- 
ticular instances  upon  which  a  conclusion  is  based  can  be 
examined  directly.  For  example,  if  I  am  aware  that  each 
one  of  the  twenty  men  who  are  taking  this  course  in  Argumen- 
tation expect  to  be  civil  engineers  I  may  safely  state  the  gen- 
eral conclusion  that  "All  the  men  who  are  taking  this  course 
in  Argumentation  expect  to  be  civil  engineers."    This  is  a 


178  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

perfect  induction,  because  I  have  included  in  the  conclusion 
only  those  men  who  are  taking  this  course;  there  are  only 
twenty  men  and  investigation  has  shown  that  each  of  them 
expects  to  be  a  civil  engineer.  Therefore,  it  is  plain  that 
there  can  be  no  opportunity  for  error.  Every  particular  in- 
stance reHed  upon  can  be  accounted  for  and  no  instance 
outside  of  these  is  brought  within  the  conclusion.  The  in- 
duction is  therefore  perfect. 

An  imperfect  induction  is  one  in  which  the  conclusion  ex- 
tends beyond  the  concrete  specific  instances  upon  which  it 
is  based.  The  examples  already  given  regarding  Stevenson's 
novels  and  the  street  car  are  imperfect  inductions.  I  have 
not  read  all  of  Stevenson's  novels  and  I  may  yet  find  one 
that  is  not  interesting  to  me.  Regarding  the  induction  about 
the  street  car,  it  is  sufi&cient  to  note  that  if  the  car  were  late 
or  failed  to  appear  at  all,  the  conclusion  would  be  of  no  value 
in  that  specific  instance.  Likewdse  I  may  state  the  general 
inductive  conclusion  that  all  roses  are  fragrant.  I  base  this 
conclusion  upon  a  great  niunber  of  specific  instances.  The 
rose  that  I  plucked  yesterday  was  fragrant;  those  which  I 
observed  in  the  conservatory  last  month  were  fragrant;  the 
roses  which  bloom  in  my  door-yard  each  summer  are  fra- 
grant; all  the  roses  that  I  have  known  since  I  was  old  enough 
to  notice  such  matters  have  been  fragrant.  Upon  this  great 
number  of  specific  instances  I  base  my  inductive  conclusion. 
It  will  be  observed,  however,  that  my  conclusion  is  not  con- 
fined to  the  roses  which  I  have  seen  but  that  it  extends  be- 
yond and  includes  all  roses  of  every  kind  everywhere.  It 
is  therefore  an  imperfect  induction.  As  it  stands  it  would  be 
impossible  to  make  this  induction  a  perfect  one,  because  it 
would  be  an  impossible  task  to  examine  every  rose  in  the 
world.  The  only  way  in  which  the  induction  can  be  made 
perfect  is  to  restrict  the  conclusion  to  cover  only  the  specific 
instances  upon  which  it  is  based.     The  conclusion  would 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  179 

then  be,  "All  the  roses  to  which  I  have  ever  given  attention 
were  fragrant." 

But  it  may  not  suit  our  purpose  thus  to  restrict  the  conclu- 
sion. We  may  wish  to  make  use  of  it  in  its  broad  general 
significance.  Every  day  we  are  compelled  to  act  upon  im- 
perfect inductions,  as  in  the  case  of  the  street  car.  In  such 
cases  we  must  resort  to  certain  rules  or  tests  whereby  we  can 
determine  the  probability  of  the  truth  of  the  imperfect  in- 
duction. We  shall  consider  these  rules  or  tests  after  we  have 
discussed  the  application  of  inductive  reasoning  to  inductive 
argument. 

III.  The  application  of  inductive  reasoning  to  inductive 
argument. 

We  have  seen  the  nature  of  the  process  of  induction  and 
have  observed  the  distinction  between  the  perfect  and  the 
imperfect.  Let  us  now  consider  the  application  of  the  in- 
ductive process  to  argimients.  The  occurrence  of  this  process 
in  all  argumentative  discourse  is  frequent.  A  simple  illustra- 
tion of  its  application  is  furnished  in  connection  with  the 
proposition  "Resolved,  that  the  Federal  Government  should 
levy  an  income  tax."  The  afl&rmative  in  the  course  of  its 
investigation  finds  that  this  tax  has  proved  practicable  in 
Switzerland,  Germany,  France,  and  England.  Further  in- 
vestigation discloses  the  fact  that  these  are  the  only  countries 
in  which  this  particular  form  of  taxation  has  been  adopted. 
From  these  particular  instances,  namely, — Switzerland,  Ger- 
many, France,  and  England,  the  general  inductive  conclusion 
may  be  drawn  that  "The  income  tax  has  proved  practicable 
in  all  the  countries  in  which  it  has  been  adopted."  This  is  a 
perfect  inductive  conclusion. 

In  presenting  this  induction  in  an  argument,  the  conclusion 
should  be  stated  first.  Then  each  of  the  countries  in  which 
the  income  tax  has  been  adopted  should  be  discussed  and 


l8o  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

evidence  introduced  to  show  that  it  has  proved  practicable 
in  every  case.  Finally,  evidence  should  be  brought  forth  to 
show  that  the  countries  named  are  the  only  ones  in  which 
the  tax  has  been  adopted.  The  conclusion  should  be  stated 
in  the  form  of  a  summary,  which  leaves  the  argument  com- 
plete. It  is  a  perfect  inductive  argument.  While  the  rea- 
soning process  cannot  be  assailed,  the  facts  upon  which  the 
induction  is  based  may  be  disproved.  Those  advancing  the 
argument  must  therefore  be  sure  that  the  facts  alleged  are 
supported  by  sufficient  evidence,  while  those  seeking  to 
overthrow  the  argument  should  be  diHgent  in  their  search 
for  evidence  showing  the  weakness  or  impracticabihty  of 
the  tax  in  one  or  all  of  the  countries  cited. 

From  the  above  illustration  it  is  plain  that  the  vaHdity  of 
the  reasoning  of  a  perfect  induction  is  easily  determined.  The 
mind  at  once  determines  whether  or  not  the  specific  instances 
presented  warrant  the  conclusion  reached.  The  question  of 
the  vaHdity  of  a  perfect  inductive  argument  is  largely  a 
question  of  fact.  With  the  imperfect  induction,  however,  the 
situation  is  somewhat  different,  for  we  have  seen  that  the 
conclusion  extends  beyond  the  actual  facts  upon  which  it  is 
based.  From  an  examination  of  several  observed  specific 
instances  a  conclusion  is  drawn  wliich  covers  instances  un- 
observed. By  it  we  pass  from  the  known  to  the  unknown. 
This  process  is  sometimes  called  the  inductive  hazard.  The 
application  of  this  form  of  reasoning  to  argument  is  illus- 
trated by  the  imperfect  induction  which  is  made  by  Lincoln 
in  his  Cooper  Institute  Address.  Here  he  draws  a  conclusion 
as  to  what  all  the  framers  of  the  original  Constitution  thought 
about  the  slavery  problem,  by  producing  evidence  to  show 
what  a  part  of  them  thought  about  it.  After  introducing 
specific  evidence  to  show  what  each  of  twenty-three  of  these 
men  thought,  he  says: 

"Here  then  we  have  twenty-three  of  our  thirty-nine  fathers 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  i8l 

'who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  Uve',  who  have, 
upon  their  oflBicial  responsibihty  and  their  corporeal  oaths, 
acted  upon  the  very  question  which  the  text  affirms  'they 
understood  just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now'; 
and  twenty-one  of  them — a  clear  majority  of  the  whole 
thirty-nine — so  acting  upon  it  as  to  make  them  guilty  of 
gross  political  impropriety  and  willful  perjury,  if,  in  their 
understanding,  any  proper  division  between  local  and  Federal 
authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution  they  had  made 
themselves,  and  sworn  to  support,  forbade  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  Federal  Territo- 
ries. Thus  the  twenty-one  acted;  and  as  actions  speak  louder 
than  words,  so  actions  under  such  responsibility  speak  still 
louder.  .  .  . 

"The  remaining  sixteen  of  the  'thirty-nine',  so  far  as  I 
have  discovered,  have  left  no  trace  of  their  understanding 
upon  the  direct  question  of  Federal  control  in  the  Federal 
Territories.  But  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  that  their 
understanding  upon  that  question  would  not  have  appeared 
different  from  that  of  their  twenty-three  compeers,  had  it 
been  manifested  at  all.  .  .  . 

''The  sum  of  the  whole  is  that  of  our  thirty-nine  fathers 
who  framed  the  original  Constitution,  twenty-one — a  clear 
majority  of  the  whole — certainly  understood  that  no  proper 
division  of  local  from  Federal  authority,  nor  any  part  of  the 
Constitution,  forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control 
as  to  slavery  in  the  Federal  Territories;  while  all  the  rest  had 
probably  the  same  understanding.  Such,  unquestionably, 
was  the  understanding  of  our  fathers  who  framed  the  original 
Constitution;  and  the  text  aflfirms  that  they  understood  the 
question  'better  than  we.'" 

The  true  test  of  an  imperfect  induction  is  not  its  suflficiency 
for  the  person  who  uses  it,  but  its  sufficiency  for  those  to 
whom  it  is  addressed.    The  argument  is  designed  to  produce 


l82  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

a  definite  effect  and  in  order  to  do  this  it  must  fulfil  certain 
conditions.  Even  when  these  conditions  are  fulfilled  the 
effect  of  the  argument  is  problematical.  Nevertheless,  in 
order  to  approach  its  maximum  efficiency  an  inductive  argu- 
ment must  meet  the  requirements  explained  in  the  following 
section. 

IV.  Requirements  for  an  effective  inductive  argument. 

I.  Perfect  inductions. 

In  a  perfect  induction  in  which  we  have  seen  that  the 
conclusion  includes  only  the  specific  instances  that  have  ac- 
tually been  examined,  the  only  requirement  is  that  the  facts 
upon  which  it  is  based  be  true.  The  student  must  observe 
the  rules  regarding  the  sufficiency  of  e\'idence.  He  must  be 
sure  that  he  has  introduced  evidence  which  shows  conclu- 
sively that  each  specific  instance  cited  in  support  of  the  con- 
clusion is  true  as  a  matter  of  fact.  If  he  allows  conjecture 
to  enter  into  any  one  of  them  he  cannot  claim  for  his  argu- 
ment the  solidity  which  characterizes  the  perfect  induction. 
If  in  arguing  for  the  necessity  of  additional  sources  of  revenue 
for  the  United  States  government,  he  has  stated  the  perfect 
inductive  conclusion  that  "The  expenditures  of  the  United 
States  government  for  the  last  three  years  have  greatly  ex- 
ceeded its  receipts,"  he  must  substantiate  his  induction  by 
exact  reference  to  the  reports  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States  for  the  last  three  years.  An  investigation  of  these 
references  must  reveal  the  fact  that  each  of  these  years  has 
shown  a  large  deficit.  The  greatest  temptation  against  which 
the  student  will  have  to  guard  is  that  of  careless  generaliza- 
tion. He  may  know  that  a  conclusion  includes  four  specific 
instances.  He  may  be  certain  that  three  of  them  support 
the  conclusion,  but  he  is  not  quite  sure  about  the  fourth. 
Nevertheless  he  conjectures  regarding  its  validity  and  heed- 
lessly proceeds  to  his  conclusion.    This  is  a  bad  habit  to  cul- 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  183 

tivate,  because  it  results  in  loose,  inaccurate  thinking.  A 
perfect  induction  should  never  be  stated  in  an  argument  until 
each  specific  instance  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  which  it 
includes,  has  been  determined  to  be  an  unquestioned  fact. 

2.  Imperfect  inductions. 

The  requirements  for  an  imperfect  induction  are  somewhat 
involved  and  demand  the  exercise  of  sound  judgment  in  their 
application.  An  imperfect  induction  can  never  be  relied 
upon  with  the  same  confidence  that  may  be  reposed  in  a 
perfect  induction.  This  truth  is  apparent  from  the  nature 
of  the  imperfect  induction.  In  order  to  measure  up  to  a  high 
standard  of  efifectiveness  an  imperfect  induction  must  comply 
with  the  following  requirements. 

A .  The  number  of  specific  instances  supporting  the  conclusion 
must  be  sufficiently  large  to  offset  the  probability  of  coinci- 
dence. 

The  problem  of  determining  the  number  of  specific  in- 
stances which  will  justify  us  in  relying  upon  an  imperfect 
induction  is  most  difficult.  As  we  shall  presently  see,  this 
number  varies  greatly  with  different  classes  of  persons,  events, 
and  things  about  which  we  wish  to  reach  conclusions.  But 
before  we  consider  this  difficulty  we  must  be  sure  that  we 
have  enough  instances  at  hand  to  eliminate  the  element  of 
chance.  At  least  from  the  argumentative  standpoint  this  is 
the  most  practical  method  of  procedure.  Suppose  the  student 
in  his  preparation  for  an  argument  finds  that  during  the  last 
year  there  has  been  a  decrease  in  the  value  of  manufactured 
articles  produced  in  the  state  of  Texas,  that  a  similar  decrease 
is  shown  in  the  state  of  New  York,  and  that  statistics  relating 
to  the  state  of  Delaware  show  the  same  result.  These  facts 
could  not  be  used  to  support  the  conclusion  that  the  value  of 
manufactured  products  of  all  the  states  of  the  Union  has 
decreased  during  the  last  year,  because  it  may  be  only  a 


l84  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

coincidence  that  their  value  has  decreased  in  the  states  named. 
In  all  the  other  states  of  the  Union  there  may  have  been  an 
increase.  The  conclusion  stated  should  belong  to  a  perfect 
induction  and  could  only  stand  upon  proof  of  the  fact  that 
the  value  of  the  products  manufactured  in  each  and  every 
one  of  the  states  showed  a  decrease.  Moreover,  it  would 
not  be  safe  to  state  the  conclusion  that  the  value  of  manu- 
factured products  in  general  shows  a  falling  off  in  value  during 
the  past  year  and  to  cite  the  three  instances  named  in  support 
of  that  contention.  In  fact,  the  probability  of  coincidence 
is  too  great  to  enable  us  to  arrive  at  any  inductive  conclusion 
other  than  that  the  manufactured  products  of  Texas,  New 
York,  and  Delaware  for  the  past  year  show  a  decrease  in 
value. 

The  student  must  be  constantly  on  guard  against  this 
loose  method  of  inductive  reasoning.  It  is  most  prolific  in 
indefinite  and  loosely  stated  conclusions  seeking  to  mas- 
querade under  an  appearance  of  validity.  He  should  always 
examine  his  own  conclusions  as  well  as  those  of  his  opponent 
for  the  purpose  of  finding  out  whether  the  instances  used  to 
support  them  are  merely  the  result  of  chance  or  coincidence. 
Let  us  suppose  that  the  decrease  observed  in  the  three  states 
named  above  has  suggested  the  probability  of  the  truth  of 
one  of  the  conclusions.  The  investigator  should  at  once 
pick  out  a  few  of  the  most  prominent  manufacturing  states 
and  find  statistics  showing  manufacturing  values  in  them. 
For  example,  he  might  consult  Massachusetts,  Pennsylvania, 
Ohio,  Michigan,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin.  If  the  same  de- 
crease is  found  to  have  existed  in  these  states  the  truth  of 
the  inductive  conclusion  becomes  much  more  probable  and 
at  the  same  time  the  probability  of  coincidence  becomes 
correspondingly  less.  The  student,  however,  should  continue 
his  investigations  and  examine  the  statistics  regarding  all 
the  manufacturing  states  of  the  Union.     He  should  then 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  18$ 

frame  his  conclusion  in  such  a  way  that  it  will  stand  sup- 
ported by  the  evidence  of  all  the  specific  instances. 

B.  The  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  about  which  the 
induction  is  made  must  he  reasonably  homogeneous. 

After  we  have  seen  three  or  four  elephants  we  feel  pretty 
safe  in  saying  that  all  elephants  have  trunks.  After  we 
have  seen  three  or  four  red  schoolhouses  we  do  not  feel 
safe  in  saying  that  all  schoolhouses  are  red.  The  first  class 
of  objects  is  homogeneous,  the  second  is  not.  Therefore  we 
may  safely  generalize  regarding  the  appearance  and  charac- 
teristics of  all  elephants  from  the  three  or  four  specimens 
which  have  come  beneath  our  notice.  As  a  class  they  possess 
in  a  marked  degree  common  traits  of  character  and  appear- 
ance. No  one  member  of  the  species  is  radically  different 
from  any  other  member.  With  schoolhouses,  however,  the 
situation  is  quite  different.  All  schoolhouses  in  a  given 
community  may  be  built  ahke  and  the  first  three  or  four 
seen  by  an  individual  might  be  painted  red;  but  since  the 
class  of  schoolhouses  is  not  homogeneous,  he  cannot  there- 
fore correctly  arrive  at  the  imperfect  inductive  conclusion 
that  all  schoolhouses  are  red.  This  illustration  should  in- 
dicate to  the  student  who  would  employ  imperfect  induction 
that  it  is  necessary  to  be  careful  in  drawing  a  broad  conclu- 
sion covering  a  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  whose 
members  he  does  not  know  to  be  reasonably  homogeneous 
with  respect  to  the  point  about  which  he  wishes  to 
argue. 

To  advance  a  step  further  in  the  consideration  of  this 
requirement,  we  must  remember  that  it  applies  only  to  the 
homogeneity  of  the  particular  characteristic  of  the  class 
regarding  which  a  conclusion  is  desired.  For  example,  if  it 
is  desired  to  arrive  at  some  conclusion  regarding  the  color 
of  all  schoolhouses,  the  inductive  process  could  not  well  be 
applied  because  the  class  is  by  no  means  homogeneous  in 


l86  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

regard  to  this  particular  characteristic.  However,  if  it  is 
desired  to  arrive  at  a  conclusion  regarding  the  use  to  which 
all  schoolhouses  are  put  the  imperfect  induction  may  safely 
be  used  because  the  class  is  reasonably  homogeneous  in  this 
characteristic. 

C.  The  specific  mstances  cited  in  support  of  the  conclusion 
must  be  fair  examples. 

In  an  imperfect  inductive  argument  the  instances  upon 
which  the  conclusion  is  based  must  be  fairly  representative 
of  the  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  which  it  includes. 
A  debater  in  an  interscholastic  contest  took  three  examples 
of  cities  having  the  commission  plan  of  city  government  as 
a  basis  for  his  argument  in  support  of  the  proposition  that 
all  American  cities  should  adopt  the  commission  form  of 
city  government.  He  began  by  showing  that  the  three 
cities, — Galveston,  Des  Moines,  and  Grand  Rapids,  were  fair 
examples  of  American  cities.  He  showed  that  they  did  not 
represent  the  exceedingly  large  cities  nor  the  exceedingly 
small  cities  but  that  they  possessed  the  chief  characteristics 
of  both.  He  produced  evidence  to  prove  that  they  were 
directly  representative  of  nine-tenths  of  the  cities  in  America 
and  that  the  principles  of  government  which  would  work 
well  in  these  three  cities,  taken  as  examples,  would  work 
equally  well  in  any  American  city.  He  then  showed  that  the 
commission  plan  of  city  government  had  worked  well  in  the 
three  examples  which  he  had  proved  to  be  fairly  representa- 
tive of  all  American  cities. 

The  greatest  temptation  to  error  is  that  of  selecting  ex- 
amples or  incidents  which  are  most  favorable  to  the  debater's 
contentions.  Such  action  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  great 
principle  which  should  govern  all  argumentative  discourse — 
the  principle  that  truth  should  stand  supreme  over  all  conten- 
tions. It  is  not  only  dishonest  to  select  unfair  examples, 
but  it  is  disloyal  to  those  who  uphold  the  debater  in  his 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  187 

efforts  to  persuade.  Never  should  an  example  be  presented 
which  possesses  characteristics  unusual  to  the  class  which 
it  purports  to  represent.  An  earnest  effort  should  always  be 
made  to  obtain  the  fairest  examples  possible. 

D.  Careful  investigation  must  disclose  no  exceptions. 

A  person  should  seldom  rely  upon  his  own  uncontradicted 
experience  to  support  an  inductive  conclusion.  The  small 
child  concludes  that  all  children  have  fathers  and  mothers 
because  it  has  a  father  and  mother.  The  tropical  savage 
concludes  that  all  parts  of  the  earth  are  warm  because  the 
part  in  which  he  lives  is  warm.  Similarly  we  find  reasonable 
persons  adopting  like  generalizations  based  upon  their  own 
uncontradicted  experience.  The  business  man  denounces  all 
pubhc  officials  as  dishonest  because  he  has  found  that  two 
or  three  are  dishonest.  The  farmer  denounces  all  lawyers 
as  dishonest  because  one  lawyer  has  treated  him  dishonestly. 
In  each  of  these  cases  it  is  evident  that  a  little  careful  in- 
vestigation would  disclose  enough  exceptions  to  overthrow 
the  conclusion. 

The  debater  should  examine  his  own  inductions  as  well  as 
those  of  his  opponent  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  possible 
exceptions.  The  man  who  declared  that  all  trades-union  men 
are  anarchists  would  have  found  the  exceptions  to  his  rule 
so  overwhelming  as  to  make  his  conclusion  appear  ridiculous. 
The  difficulty  is  that  the  abnormal  and  exceptional  instances 
which  we  know  loom  so  large  in  our  minds  that  they  become 
prejudices  and  crowd  out  calm  reason.  The  few  union  men 
who  have  destroyed  Ufe  and  property  should  not  be  made  the 
specffic  instances  supporting  an  induction  regarding  the  whole 
class  of  trades-union  men.  The  few  college  men  who  drink, 
swear,  and  carouse  should  not  be  made  the  specific  instances 
supporting  an  induction  regarding  the  whole  class  of  college 
men.  Every  induction  should  be  examined  carefully  for  the 
purpose  of  discovering  exceptions. 


l88  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

E.  The  conclusion  must  he  reasonable. 

After  all  the  foregoing  requirements  have  been  met  there 
still  remains  one  essential.  The  conclusion  must  be  reason- 
able. This  is  the  ultimate  test  of  validity.  We  have  become 
so  familiar  with  the  usual  course  of  nature  that  we  instinc- 
tively question  that  which  appears  to  run  contrary  thereto. 
Nothing  occurs  without  an  adequate  cause.  Upon  this 
principle  we  base  our  judgment  regarding  all  matters  which 
transcend  our  own  experience.  Most  of  us  have  passed  the 
superstitious  days  when  the  breaking  of  a  looking  glass  was 
regarded  as  a  sure  sign  that  someone  in  the  family  would 
die  before  the  end  of  the  year.  Even  the  time-honored 
Friday  and  number  thirteen  with  their  attendant  supersti- 
tious disasters  no  longer  have  a  large  following.  Scientific 
investigation  and  the  present  age  of  commercialism  have 
crowded  out  superstition  and  put  common  sense  in  its  place. 
The  average  mind  is  highly  reasonable  and  requires  some 
causal  connection  between  the  breaking  of  a  looking  glass 
and  the  death  of  a  person.  It  would  refuse  to  beHeve  that 
one  caused  the  other,  or  that  one  was  the  sign  of  the  other, 
even  though  there  might  be  a  hundred  instances  to  warrant 
the  induction  and  not  one  to  contradict  it.  The  final  re- 
quirement for  an  imperfect  inductive  argument  is  that  it  be 
reasonable. 

SUMMARY  OF  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  AN  IMPERFECT  INDUCTIVE 
ARGUMENT 

1.  The  number  of  specific  instances  supporting  the  conclusion 

must  be  sufficiently  large  to  offset  the  probability  of  coin- 
cidence. 

2.  The  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  about  which  the  in- 

duction is  made  must  be  reasonably  homogeneous. 

3.  The  specific  instances  cited  in  support  of  the  conclusion  must 

be  fair  examples. 

4.  Careful  investigation  must  disclose  no  exceptions. 

5.  The  conclusion  must  be  reasonable. 


INDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  189 

EXERCISES 

1.  Are  the  following  inductions  perfect  or  imperfect? 

(i)  All  men  are  mortal. 

(2)  All  Irving's  books  are  interesting  (or  uninteresting). 

(3)  All  the  presidents  of  the  United  States  who  have 

been  assassinated  were  Republicans. 

(4)  "Pythagoras  was  misunderstood,  and  Socrates,  and 

Jesus,  and  Luther,  and  Copernicus,  and  GaUleo,  and 
Newton,  and  every  pure  and  wise  spirit  that  ever 
took  flesh.    To  be  great  is  to  be  misunderstood." 

Emerson,  Self -Reliance 

(5)  Money  is  the  root  of  all  evil. 

2.  Give  in  full  the  specific  instances  upon  which  each  of  the 
foregoing  inductions  is  based. 

3.  Apply  the  requirements  for  validity  to  each  of  the  inductions 
in  exercise  one,  and  state  the  result. 

4.  Write  an-inductive  argument  of  four  hundred  words. 


CHAPTER  n 

DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT 

Deductive  argument  consists  of  the  application  of  deduc- 
tive processes  of  reasoning  to  argumentative  discourse.  This 
process  of  applying  logical  principles  is  somewhat  more  com- 
plicated than  that  involved  in  induction.  In  some  respects 
it  is  more  important  that  the  student  thoroughly  master 
deduction  than  it  is  that  he  master  induction.  Fallacies  are 
more  easily  concealed  in  the  deductive  process  than  in  the 
inductive  process.  Nevertheless,  when  the  fallacy  is  once 
detected  it  can  be  set  forth  clearly  by  anyone  who  under- 
stands this  form  of  reasoning.  Neither  the  inductive  nor 
the  deductive  form  of  reasoning  is  often  found  alone.  Most 
arguments  contain  both  of  these  processes  and  in  some  cases 
they  are  very  closely  interwoven.  This  fact  necessitates  a 
thorough  study  of  both  processes.  From  this  standpoint  a 
knowledge  of  one  form  is  as  important  as  a  knowledge  of  the 
other.  In  order  that  we  may  thoroughly  understand  the 
application  of  the  deductive  process  to  argument  we  must 
first  consider  separately  that  process  of  reasoning. 

I.  Deductive  reasoning. 

By  deductive  reasoning  we  arrive  at  a  conclusion  regarding 
a  particular  person,  event,  or  thing  by  reason  of  our  knowl- 
edge regarding  the  whole  class  to  which  the  particular  person, 
event,  or  thing  belongs.  In  this  sense  it  is  the  opposite  of 
induction.  We  conclude  that  a  particular  book  is  interesting 
because  we  know  that  all  the  books  written  by  the  author  of 

190 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  191 

this  book  are  interesting.  We  may  say  that  deductive  reason- 
ing begins  where  inductive  reasoning  leaves  off.  For  example, 
we  found  that  we  could  arrive  at  the  imperfect  inductive 
conclusion  that  all  of  Stevenson's  books  are  interesting  be- 
cause each  one  of  a  number  of  his  books  which  we  had  read 
was  interesting.  Since  (i)  the  number  of  specific  instances 
cited  were  sufficient  to  offset  the  probability  of  coincidence, 
(2)  the  class  was  fairly  homogeneous,  (3)  the  examples  were 
fair,  (4)  we  found  upon  investigation  that  there  were  no  ex- 
ceptions, and  (5)  from  the  character  of  the  author  and  other 
circumstances  the  conclusion  seemed  reasonable,  we  con- 
cluded that  our  induction  was  sound.  Now,  taking  this 
conclusion  as  true  we  may  apply  it  to  any  one  of  Stevenson's 
works  not  yet  examined  and  thus  determine  that  that  work 
is  interesting.  It  must  be  kept  in  mind,  however,  that  a  de- 
duction based  upon  an  imperfect  induction  is  no  stronger 
than  that  imperfect  induction.  The  imperfect  induction 
gains  no  strength  by  reason  of  its  having  a  valid  deduc- 
tion based  upon  it.  Nevertheless,  unsound  arguments  are 
often  given  a  superficial  appearance  of  validity  by  this 
means. 

We  may  more  clearly  indicate  the  relation  of  the  inductive 
and  the  deductive  process  by  arranging  the  material  of  the 
foregoing  illustration  in  the  following  manner. 

A.  Inductive  process. 

1.  Specific  instances. 

(i)  Treasure  Island,  written  by  Stevenson  is  interesting. 

(2)  Kidnapped,  written  by  Stevenson  is  interesting. 

(3)  David  Balfour,  written  by  Stevenson  is  interesting. 

(4)  Prince  Otto,  written  by  Stevenson  is  interesting. 

(5)  St.  Ives,  written  by  Stevenson  is  interesting. 

2.  Conclusion:  All  books  written  by  Stevenson  are  in- 

teresting. 


192  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

B.  Deductive  process. 

1.  Major  Premise:  All  books  written  by  Stevenson  are 

interesting. 

2.  Minor  Premise:  The  Silverado  ^jwcWer^  was  written  by 

Stevenson. 

3.  Conclusion:  Therefore  The  Silverado  Squatters  is  inter- 

esting. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  inductive  conclusion  forms  the 
first  statement,  the  basis,  or  what  is  called  in  logic,  the  major 
premise  of  the  deductive  process.  By  induction  we  build 
several  specific  instances  into  a  conclusion,  and  from  that 
conclusion  we  reason  down  again  to  one  particular  instance. 
This  illustration  should  serve  to  make  plain  to  the  student 
the  relation  between  induction  and  deduction  and  the  reason 
why  the  two  processes  are  so  often  combined  in  an  argument. 

In  logic  the  deductive  form  presented  above  is  called  a 
syllogism.  It  consists  of  three  statements  called  Major 
Premise,  Minor  Premise,  and  Conclusion.  This  syllogism 
occurs  in  different  forms,  but  we  are  concerned  with  only  the 
typical  form  above  presented,  because  it  is  to  this  form  that 
we  intend  to  reduce  our  own  arguments  and  the  arguments  of 
our  opponents  in  order  that  we  may  test  their  vahdity. 

Each  statement  in  a  syllogism  is  composed  of  two  parts, 
called  terms.  The  names  of  these  terms  as  well  as  their 
proper  location  in  the  syllogism  are  indicated  by  the  follow- 
ing form: 

Middle  term.  Major  term. 

I.  Major  Premise:  All  college  men  should  study  argumentation. 
Minor  term.     Middle  term. 


2.  Minor  Premise:  Paul  Morton  is  a  college  man. 

Minor  term.  Major  term. 


3.  Conclusion:  Therefore  Paul  Morton  should  study  argumentation. 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  193 

The  student  will  observe  that  each  statement  in  the  syllogism 
is  composed  of  two  terms  and  that  each  term  appears  twice 
in  the  entire  syllogism,  but  only  once  in  any  one  statement. 
The  major  term  represents  the  largest  element  in  the  syllogism 
namely, — the  class  of  persons  who  should  study  argumenta- 
tion. The  minor  term  represents  the  smallest  element  in  the 
syllogism  namely, — Paul  Morton,  the  particular  person  about 
whom  a  conclusion  is  reached.  The  middle  term  serves  as  an 
intermediary  or  connecting  link  which  binds  the  minor  term 
to  the  major  term.  It  does  not  appear  in  the  conclusion  but 
is  cast  away  after  it  has  served  its  purpose  in  assigning  the 
minor  term, — Paul  Morton,  to  the  major  term, — those  who 
should  study  argumentation. 

In  the  typical  form  of  the  syllogism  with  which  we  are 
concerned  the  major  premise  should  always  be  in  the  uni- 
versal affirmative-form.  By  universal  affirmative  is  meant 
that  the  assertion  is  made  with  regard  to  the  class  as  a  whole 
as:  "All  men  are  mortal,"  "All  laws  should  be  obeyed," 
"All  students  should  pay  their  bills,"  etc.  No  part  of  the 
class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  about  which  an  assertion 
is  made  should  be  left  outside  the  statement  as  would  be  the 
case  if  the  statements  read — "Some  laws  should  be  obeyed," 
"Some  students  should  pay  their  bills." 

From  the  foregoing  discussion  it  is  evident  that  the  deduc- 
tive syllogism,  in  order  to  be  valid,  must  be  constructed  in 
accordance  with  certain  well  defined  rules.  In  books  of 
logic  the  student  will  find  these  rules  discussed  at  some 
length  and  their  application  set  forth  in  detail.  For  our 
purpose  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  them  and  keep  them 
clearly  in  mind  in  connection  with  the  discussion  here  given. 
The  rules  of  the  syllogism  with  which  we  are  concerned  are 
as  follows: 

I.  A  syllogism  must  contain  three  terms,  Major  term, 
!Minor  term,  and  Middle  term. 


194  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

2.  A  syllogism  must  consist  of  three  complete  statements, 
Major  Premise,  Minor  Premise,  and  Conclusion. 

3.  The  middle  term  must  be  distributed  at  least  once  in 
the  premises.  A  term  is  distributed  when  it  is  universal  in 
its  application  or  taken  in  its  whole  length  of  meaning. 

4.  A  term  cannot  be  distributed  in  the  conclusion  unless  it 
is  distributed  in  the  premises. 

5.  No  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  two  negative  premises. 

6.  A  negative  conclusion  always  follows  one  negative 
premise  and  a  negative  conclusion  cannot  be  obtained  unless 
one  of  the  premises  is  negative. 

For  the  purpose  of  making  more  plain  the  relation  between 
the  terms  and  the  statements  in  a  syllogism  let  us  consider 
the  old  method  of  graphical  representation  by  means  of 
circles. 

I.  All  college  men  should  study  argxunentation. 

II.  Paul  Morton  is  a  coUege  man. 

III.  Paul  Morton  should  study  argumentation. 

From  the  diagrams  on  the  following  page  it  is  seen  that  in 
the  major  premise  the  middle  term  must  be  wholly  included 
within  the  major  term.  The  entire  class  of  college  men  must 
be  included  within  the  class  of  those  who  should  study  argu- 
mentation. Not  one  single  college  man  must  be  left  outside 
the  class.  In  the  minor  premise  the  minor  term  must  be 
clearly  and  unmistakably  included  within  the  middle  term. 
Paul  Morton  must  be  a  college  man.  He  must  not  be  a 
banker  or  a  janitor.  In  the  conclusion  the  minor  term  must  be 
included  within  the  major  term.  This  position  inevitably  re- 
sults from  the  two  preceding  situations.  If  the  middle  term, 
college  men,  is  wholly  included  within  the  major  term,  those 
who  should  study  argumentation,  and  if  the  minor  term, 
Paul  Morton,  is  wholly  included  within  the  middle  term, 
college  men,  then  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  the  minor 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT 
1  MAJOR  PREMISS 


I9S 


mvnNOR  PRBMISE 
[Middle 


IIICONCIvUSION 


196  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

term  is  included  within  the  major  term.  In  other  words, 
Paul  Morton  is  definitely  assigned  to  the  class  of  those  who 
should  study  argumentation. 

We  may  represent  the  whole  syllogism  in  the  following 
manner: 


The  student  should  be  sure  that  he  has  mastered  each  step 
in  the  construction  of  a  valid  syllogism  of  the  typical  form 
before  he  passes  on  to  the  following  section  of  this  chapter. 

II.  The  application  of  deductive  reasoning  to  deductive 
argument. 

From  our  examination  of  the  deductive  process  of  reason- 
ing we  cannot  but  realize  its  importance  when  applied  to  the 
construction  of  an  argument.  One  cannot  advance  far  into 
any  argumentative  discourse  without  encountering  deduc- 
tion in  some  form.  A  student  in  a  class  debate  defended 
the  following  proposition  with  the  inductive  arguments  given 
below:  "Resolved  that  tariff  should  be  imposed  for  revenue 
only."     In  his  introduction  the  student  declared  that  the 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  I97 

protective  tariff  should  be  removed.  In  support  of  his  con- 
tention he  offered  five  substantial  reasons  which  he  claimed 
included  the  vital  points  at  issue.  These  reasons  were  as 
follows: 

A.  High  duties  encourage  the  formation  of  trusts. 

B.  The  high  cost  of  living  results  from  protection. 

C.  Protection  is  unjust  to  the  American  people. 

D.  Protection  breeds  corruption. 

E.  The  usefulness  of  the  protective  tariff  has  long  ceased. 

Each  of  the  above  reasons  for  the  removal  of  the  protective 
tariff  is  a  deductive  argument.  The  complete  deductive 
process  is  seen  when  we  state  each  argmnent  in  syllogistic 
form. 

A 

1.  All  things  which  encourage  the  formation  of  trusts  should  be 

abolished. 

2.  The  protective  tariff  encourages  the  formation  of  trusts. 

3.  Therefore  the  protective  tariff  should  be  abohshed. 

B 

1.  All  things  which  are  the  cause  of  the  high  cost  of  hving  should 

be  abohshed. 

2.  The  protective  tariff  is  a  cause  of  the  high  cost  of  living. 

3.  Therefore  the  protective  tariff  should  be  abohshed. 

C 

1.  All  things  which  are  unjust  to  the  American  people  should 

be  abolished. 

2.  The  protective  tariff  is  unjust  to  the  American  people. 

3.  Therefore  the  protective  tariff  should  be  abolished. 

D 

1.  All  things  which  breed  corruption  should  be  abolished. 

2.  The  protective  tariff  breeds  corruption. 

3.  Therefore  the  protective  tariff  should  be  abohshed. 


198  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

E 

1.  All  governmental  policies  the  usefulness  of  which  has  long 

since  ceased  should  be  abolished. 

2.  The  protective  tarifi  is  a  governmental  policy  the  usefulness 

of  which  has  long  since  ceased. 

3.  Therefore  the  protective  tariff  should  be  aboUshed. 

Each  of  the  above  syllogisms  stands  as  an  argument  for 
the  abolition  of  the  protective  tariff;  or,  to  take  the  stand- 
point of  the  proposition  each  supports  the  contention  that 
the  tariff  should  be  imposed  for  revenue  only.  All  of  the  five 
reasons  lead  to  a  single  conclusion.  We  may  represent  this 
relation  by  the  following  diagram: 

A  B  C  D  E 


\  \ 

Conclusion:    The    protective    tariff    should    be 
abolished. 

This  use  of  deductions  is  very  simple,  but  in  dealing  with 
a  combination  of  induction  and  deduction  the  process  may 
become  very  complicated.  For  example,  the  major  premise 
of  the  first  syllogism  above  stated  has  back  of  it  another 
logical  process  of  reasoning.  Why  should  all  things  which 
encourage  the  formation  of  trusts  be  abolished?  What  proof 
can  we  show  to  establish  the  conclusion  (in  A,  the  major 
premise)  that  the  formation  of  trusts  should  be  discouraged 
rather  than  encouraged?  It  must  be  established  in  a  log- 
ical manner.  We  may  establish  it  by  induction  by  showing 
that  each  one  of  a  large  number  of  trusts  has  had  injurious 
effects.  After  we  have  introduced  positive  evidence  establish- 
ing a  perfect  or  an  imperfect  induction  we  have  laid  a 
sufficiently  strong  foundation  for  the  deductive  syllogism. 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  199 

On  the  other  hand,  we  may  establish  the  major  premise  of 
the  above  syllogism  by  means  of  deduction.  To  do  this  we 
might  find  evidence  which  would  prove  that  trusts  increase 
the  cost  of  producing  commodities  and  decrease  their  quahty. 
In  this  case  it  would  be  necessary  to  introduce  evidence  only 
along  the  line  which  would  show  that  this  evil  was  charac- 
teristic of  all  trusts.  This  would  be  an  induction,  because 
the  general  principle  used  as  a  major  premise  would  be  based 
upon  specific  instances.  Beginning  with  this  induction  we 
would  build  up  the  following  syllogism,  the  conclusion  of 
which  supports  the  major  premise  of  the  foregoing  syl- 
logism. 

1.  All  forms  of  business  organization  which  increase  the 
cost  of  producing  commodities  and  decrease  their  quality 
are  an  industrial  evil. 

2.  The  trust  is  a  form  of  business  organization  which 
increases  the  cost  of  production  and  decreases  the  quality  of 
commodities. 

3.  Therefore  the  trust  is  an  industrial  evil. 

Then  to  continue  our  deductive  reasoning  we  would  con- 
struct the  following  syllogism  based  upon  the  foregoing: 

1.  All  industrial  evils  should  be  discouraged. 

2.  The  formation  of  trusts  is  an  industrial  evil. 

3.  Therefore  the  formation  of  trusts  should  be  discouraged. 
The  exact  phraseology  has  not  been  kept  throughout  the 

above  line  of  reasoning,  because  seldom  in  any  practical 
work  do  we  find  the  exact  words  repeated  except  for  emphasis. 
However,  it  requires  the  exercise  of  only  ordinary  ingenuity 
to  follow  precisely  the  entire  reasoning  processes  involved  in 
the  foregoing  argument. 

An  excellent  example  of  the  use  of  the  deductive  syllogism 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  an  opponent's  deductive 
argument  is  unsound  is  the  following  extract  from  Lincoln's 
reply  to  Douglas  in  the  Fifth  Joint  Debate  at  Galesburg: 


200  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

"In  the  second  clause  of  the  sixth  article,  I  believe  it  is,  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  we  find  the  following  language, 
'This  Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  United  States  which  shall 
be  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  and  all  the  treaties  made,  or  which 
shall  be  made  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  shall  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land;  and  the  judges  in  every  state  shall 
be  bound  thereby,  anything  in  the  Constitution  or  laws  of  any 
state  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

"The  essence  of  the  Dred  Scott  case  is  compressed  into  the 
sentence  which  I  will  now  read,  '  Now  as  we  have  already  said  in 
an  earlier  part  of  this  opinion,  upon  a  different  point,  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Con- 
stitution.' I  repeat  it,  '  The  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly 
expressed  and  affirmed  in  the  Constitution.'  What  is  it  to  be  'c/- 
firmed'  in  the  Constitution?  Made  firm  in  the  Constitution, — • 
so  made  that  it  cannot  be  separated  from  the  Constitution  without 
breaking  the  Constitution;  durable  as  the  Constitution,  and  part 
of  the  Constitution.  Now  remembering  the  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution which  I  have  read;  afiirming  that  that  instrument  is  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land;  that  the  Judges  of  every  state  shall  be 
bound  by  it,  any  law  or  constitution  of  any  state  to  the  contrary, 
notwithstanding;  that  the  right  of  property  in  a  slave  is  affirmed 
in  that  Constitution,  is  made,  formed  into,  and  cannot  be  separated 
from  it  without  breaking  it;  durable  as  the  instrument;  part  of 
the  instrument;  what  follows  as  a  short  and  even  syllogistic  argu- 
ment from  it?  I  think  it  follows,  and  I  submit  to  the  consideration 
of  men  capable  of  arguing  whether  as  I  state  it,  in  syllogistic  form, 
the  argument  has  any  faults  in  it?  (i)  Nothing  in  the  constitution 
or  laws  of  any  state  can  destroy  a  right  distinctly  and  expressly 
afi&rmed  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  (2)  The  right 
of  property  in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  afiirmed  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  (3)  Therefore  nothing  in  the 
Constitution  or  laws  of  any  state  can  destroy  the  right  of  property 
in  a  slave. 

"I  believe  that  no  fault  can  be  pointed  out  in  that  argument; 
assuming  the  truth  of  the  premises,  the  conclusion,  so  far  as  I  have 
capacity  at  all  to  understand  it,  follows  inevitably.  There  is  a 
fault  in  it  as  I  think,  but  the  fault  is  not  in  tlie  reasoning;  but  the 
fault  in  fact  is  a  fault  of  the  premises.  I  believe  that  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  not  expressly  and  distinctly  affirmed  in  the 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  201 

Constitution,  and  Judge  Douglas  thinks  it  is.  I  believe  that  the 
Supreme  Court  and  the  advocates  of  that  decision  may  search  in 
vain  for  the  place  in  the  Constitution  where  the  right  of  property 
in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  afiirmed.  I  say,  therefore, 
that  I  think  one  of  the  premises  is  not  true  in  fact." 

To  give  examples  of  all  the  forms  in  which  deduction  may 
be  applied  to  argument  is  impossible.  The  foregoing  ex- 
amples are  merely  suggestive.  They  serve  to  make  plain 
the  practical  use  which  can  be  made  of  this  logical  process. 
The  student  must  master  the  underlying  principles  herein 
suggested  and  apply  them  to  his  own  work. 

III.  The  enthymeme. 

An  enthymeme  is  an  incomplete  syllogism.  It  is  a  syllogism 
in  which  only  one  or  two  of  the  statements  are  expressed. 
An  example  of  an  enthymeme  is  the  following  proposition, 
"The  protective  tariff  should  be  abolished  because  it  encour- 
ages the  formation  of  trusts."  This  is  the  form  in  which  we 
most  commonly  encounter  deductive  reasoning.  Seldom  is 
the  complete  syllogism  expressed.  It  therefore  becomes  our 
task  to  construct  from  this  enthymeme  a  complete  syllogism. 
Our  first  duty,  then,  is  to  find  out  what  parts  of  the  syllogism 
are  contained  in  the  enthymeme  and  then  strive  to  supply 
the  missing  parts.  Usually  the  major  premise  is  omitted. 
This  requires  that  it  be  supplied  from  a  consideration  of  the 
minor  premise  and  the  conclusion.  In  almost  all  cases  the 
conclusion  is  expressed.  If  it  is  not  expressed  it  is  clearly 
implied.  This  supplies  the  minor  term  (the  thing  about  which 
something  is  said)  and  the  major  term  (the  thing  that  is  said 
about  it).  From  these  two  terms  it  is  usually  easy  to  find  a 
middle  term  which  will  serve  as  a  connecting  link.  The 
process  of  building  syllogisms  upon  enthymemes  is  compara- 
tively simple  if  the  student  will  always  find  the  conclusion 
and  then  divide  it  into  the  two  terms  of  which  it  is  composed. 


202  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

In  order  to  illustrate  the  application  of  the  principles  above 
expressed,  let  us  reduce  an  enthymeme  to  the  syllogistic 
form.  We  shall  take  for  our  example  the  enthymeme,  "The 
railroads  of  the  United  States  should  be  under  Federal  con- 
trol because  they  are  a  natural  monopoly."  The  parts  of  a 
syllogism  which  are  expressed  in  this  statement  must  be 
found  and  of  these  the  conclusion  should  be  first  determined. 
In  this  case  the  conclusion  is  "The  railroads  of  the  United 
States  should  be  under  Federal  control."  "Railroads  of  the 
United  States,"  is  the  minor  term,  and  "should  be  under 
Federal  control"  is  the  major  term.  Now,  to  represent 
what  we  have  thus  far  discovered  we  apply  the  order  of  state- 
ments and  terms  which  were  employed  in  the  discussion  of 
Deductive  Reasoning.    The  result  is  as  follows: 

Major  term 


I.  Major  Premise:  should  be  under  Federal  control. 

Minor  term 


II.  Minor  Premise:    The  railroads  of  the  United  States 

III.  Conclusion: 

Minor  term  Major  term 

The  railroads  of  the  United  States  should  be  under  Federal  control. 

We  thus  have  the  entire  syllogism  completed  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  middle  term.  Our  next  task  is  to  find  this  middle 
term.  It  must  include  the  minor  term  and  it  must  he  included 
in  the  major  term.  A  reference  to  the  diagrams  given  in 
connection  with  the  discussion  of  Deductive  Reasoning  will 
make  this  plain.  With  this  requirement  in  mind  we  consider 
the  enthymeme  and  find  that  the  reason  assigned  for  placing 
railroads  under  Federal  control  is  that  they  are  a  natural 
monopoly.    This  gives  us  the  middle  term  as  it  appears  in 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  203 

the  minor  premise.  We  then  take  this  middle  term  and  cast 
it  into  the  universal  affirmative  form,  "All  natural  monop- 
olies." We  now  have  the  enthymeme  with  which  we  started 
out,  reduced  to  the  following  syllogistic  form: 

Major  Premise:  All  natural  monopolies  should  be  under 
Federal  control. 

Minor  Premise:  The  railroads  of  the  United  States  are  a 
natural  monopoly. 

Conclusion:  Therefore  the  railroads  of  the  United  States 
should  be  under  Federal  control. 

This  places  clearly  before  us  the  deductive  argument  con- 
tained in  the  enthymeme.  The  syllogism  is  complete.  The 
statements  and  terms  are  in  their  proper  order  and  form, 
and  the  conclusion  follows  logically  and  inevitably  from  the 
premises.  The  form  of  the  syllogism  as  it  stands  is  therefore 
sound.  If  the  two  premises  are  true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
conclusion  must  be  true.  Having  determined  these  matters 
we  now  scrutinize  each  of  the  premises  to  see  whether  there 
is  sufficient  evidence  to  establish  its  truth.  In  the  first  place 
is  it  true  that  all  natural  monopolies  should  be  under  Federal 
control?  What  is  a  natural  monopoly  and  why  should  it  be 
under  Federal  control?  All  the  sources  of  evidence  must  be 
searched  for  facts  and  statements  of  authority  to  substantiate 
this  assertion.  On  this  point  opinions  differ  and  the  student 
must  strive  to  find  out  the  truth  for  himself.  The  other  ques- 
tion which  he  must  answer  is,  "Are  the  railroads  of  the  United 
States  a  natural  monopoly?"  Here  again  the  student  must 
resort  to  the  sources  of  evidence  and  by  their  aid  answer  the 
question  in  the  affirmative  or  in  the  negative.  If  he  can 
introduce  enough  evidence  to  prove  that  all  natural  monop- 
olies in  the  United  States  should  be  under  Federal  control, 
and  that  the  railroads  are  a  natural  monopoly,  then  he  has 
completed  a  sound  deductive  argument  in  favor  of  the  Fed- 
eral control  of  railroads.    This  example  ought  to  make  clear 


204  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

the  method  of  reducing  an  enthymeme  to  the  syllogistic  form 
and  the  use  to  which  this  form  may  then  be  put. 

Before  leaving  this  subject  a  word  of  caution  is  necessary. 
Do  not  be  confused  by  the  form  in  which  the  enthymeme 
appears.  Be  sure  that  you  have  the  real  conclusion  before 
you  begin  the  construction  of  the  rest  of  the  syllogism.  If 
you  have  failed  to  grasp  what  the  enthymeme  really  says  you 
are  liable  to  get  a  wrong  conclusion,  and  if  you  get  a  wrong 
conclusion  the  whole  syllogism  will  be  wrong.  High  sounding 
oratorical  phrases  and  sentences  are  often  confusing.  Plain- 
ness is  sometimes  avoided  by  the  speaker  for  the  express 
purpose  of  concealing  a  fault  in  his  argument.  Even  truth 
expressed  in  an  unusual  form  is  often  misleading  when  we 
seek  to  reduce  it  to  logical  terms. 

Some  difficulty  is  usually  experienced  in  reducing  the  beati- 
tudes to  the  typical  syllogistic  form.  For  example,  in  reduc- 
ing the  enthymeme  "Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they 
shall  see  God,"  the  inexperienced  student  usually  says  that 
the  conclusion  is,  "The  blessed  shall  see  God."  A  syllogism 
built  upon  this  conclusion  would  appear  as  follows: 

1.  All  those  who  are  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God. 

2.  The  blessed  are  pure  in  heart. 

3.  Therefore  the  blessed  shall  see  God. 

This  is  a  valid  syllogism  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned; 
but  it  is  of  no  use  in  throwing  light  upon  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  the  enthymeme,  because  the  conclusion  with  which  we 
started  was  not  the  true  conclusion.  This  fault  is  fatal  to  the 
success  of  the  argument,  because  after  the  syllogism  is  com- 
pleted the  student  usually  devotes  his  entire  attention  to 
proving  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the  two  premises  and  seldom 
gives  any  further  attention  to  the  conclusion. 

Another  erroneous  statement  of  the  conclusion  expressed 


DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT  205 

in  the  above  enthymeme  is  often  given.  It  is  "All  those  who 
are  blessed  shall  see  God."  With  this  conclusion  as  a  start- 
ing point  we  may  construct  the  following  syllogism: 

1.  All  those  who  are  blessed  shall  see  God. 

2.  The  pure  in  heart  are  blessed. 

3.  Therefore  the  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God. 

Again  we  have  an  invalid  syllogism,  because  the  conclusion 
from  which  we  built  it  is  not  the  true  conclusion  expressed  in 
the  enthymeme.  Likewise  there  are  many  pitfalls  for  him 
who  seeks  to  find  the  true  meaning  of  any  statement  worded 
in  a  manner  different  from  that  in  which  we  are  accustomed 
to  speak.  The  very  difficulty,  however,  suggests  the  remedy. 
The  student  should  always  reduce  the  complicated  statement 
to  plain,  ordinary,  everyday  Enghsh  before  attempting  to 
find  the  conclusion.  Reducing  the  enthymeme  under  con- 
sideration in  this  manner  we  have  this  simple  statement, 
"The  pure  in  heart  are  blessed  because  they  shall  see  God." 
When  we  have  put  the  statement  in  this  form  the  real  con- 
clusion is  readily  seen.  It  is  "The  pure  in  heart  are  blessed." 
The  remainder  of  the  enthymeme  is  a  statement  of  the  reason 
why  the  pure  in  heart  are  blessed.  With  this  as  a  basis  we 
easily  construct  a  valid  syllogism. 

1.  All  those  who  shall  see  God  are  blessed. 

2.  The  pure  in  heart  shall  see  God. 

3.  Therefore  the  pure  in  heart  are  blessed. 

In  closing  this  discussion  it  may  be  remarked  that  actual 
practice  in  the  use  of  the  deductive  process  as  well  as  its  ap- 
plication to  argument  is  the  only  way  in  which  real  practical 
benefit  may  be  derived  from  the  knowledge  here  gained. 
This  knowledge  should  not  be  reserved  for  use  in  the  class 
room  but  should  be  used  all  the  time  and  everywhere. 


2o6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

EXERCISES  IN  DEDUCTIVE  ARGUMENT 

I.  Construct  valid  syllogisms  showing  the  reasoning  involved 

in  each  of  the  following  enthymemes: 

1.  Since  large  corporations  are  gaining  control  of  all  industries 

a  Federal  incorporation  law  should  be  enacted. 

2.  As  swollen  fortunes  are  an  evil,  a  progressive  inheritance  tax 

should  be  enacted. 

3.  Commercial  reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and 

Canada  would  be  for  the  best  interest  of  the  United 
States  because  it  would  reduce  the  high  cost  of  living. 

4.  Because  compulsory  insurance  has  been  successful  in  Ger- 

many, it  should  be  adopted  in  the  United  States. 

5.  On  account  of  the  growth  of  the  divorce  evil  in  the  United 

States,  there  should  be  a  Federal  law  regulating  marriage 
and  divorce. 

6.  There  should  be  a  state  censorship  of  the  stage  because 

many  immoral  productions  are  being  brought  before  the 
public. 

7.  "Blessed  are  the  meek  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth." 

II.  Diagram,  by  means  of  circles,  the  syllogisms  constructed 
under  exercise  I. 

III.  State  three  instances  in  which  you  have  recently  employed 
deductive  argument. 

IV.  Write  a  deductive  argument  of  not  less  than  three  hundred 
words. 


CHAPTER  III 

ARGUMENT   FROM   CAUSAL  RELATION 

Arguments  from  causal  relation  are  divided  into  three 
classes,  I.  Arguments  from  Effect  to  Cause,  II.  Arguments 
from  Cause  to  Effect,  and  III.  Arguments  from  Effect  to 
Effect.  All  arguments  from  causal  relation  may  be  classed 
under  one  or  the  other  of  these  divisions.  These  arguments 
are  based  upon  a  fact  which  human  experience  has  demon- 
strated to  be  true — the  fact  that  everything  that  occurs  has 
back  of  it  some  adequate  cause.  In  ancient  times  this  belief 
in  the  laws  of  universal  causation  did  not  exist.  Hence 
every  occurrence  of  any  importance  was  attributed  to  the 
commands  of  one  of  the  numerous  heathen  gods.  Instead 
of  attributing  the  defeat  of  a  general  to  poor  management  it 
was  customary  to  say,  "The  gods  decreed  that  this  general 
should  be  defeated  in  war." 

We  still  have  remnants  of  this  belief.  These  remnants 
consist  of  popular  superstitions,  such  as  the  supposition  that 
Friday  is  an  unlucky  day,  that  the  number  thirteen  is  un- 
lucky, that  the  breaking  of  a  looking  glass  portends  bad 
luck,  or  that  the  sight  of  a  black  cat  in  the  path  is  sure  to  be 
followed  by  some  disaster.  Modern  science  has  abolished 
most  of  these  superstitions  by  pointing  out  the  fact  upon 
which  all  causal  relation  arguments  are  based,  viz. — that 
everything  that  happens  has  back  of  it  a  reasonable  cause — 
or  in  other  words,  if  a  thing  is  true  there  must  be  some  suffi- 
cient reason  for  it.  So  well  has  this  fact  been  estabUshed 
that,  with  the  exception  of  the  less  enUghtened  members  of 

207 


2o8  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

society,  the  belief  in  the  laws  of  causation  is  universal.  Upon 
this  sound  basis  must  every  argument  find  its  ultimate  justi- 
fication. Even  inductions  and  deductions  may  be  traced  to 
their  source  where  the  law  of  cause  and  effect  will  finally 
determine  their  validity.  It  is  therefore  of  the  utmost  im- 
portance that  we  give  careful  consideration  to  this  class  of 
arguments.  As  in  the  case  of  imperfect  induction,  we  are 
reasoning  from  the  known  to  the  unknown;  from  things  of 
which  we  are  conscious  to  things  that  are  beyond  the  realm 
of  our  perception.  We  shall  consider  the  form  of  these  argu- 
ments and  the  conditions  with  which  they  must  comply  in 
order  to  be  valid. 

I.  Argument  from  effect  to  cause. 

The  argument  from  effect  to  cause  is  one  which  relies  upon 
an  observed  effect  to  prove  the  operation  of  an  unobserved 
cause.  Upon  arising  in  the  morning  I  observe  that  the  ground 
which  was  bare  the  evening  before  is  now  white  with  snow. 
Therefore  I  reason  that  snow  must  have  fallen  during  the 
night,  although  no  snow  is  now  falUng  and  I  have  not  seen 
any  snow  in  the  actual  process  of  falling.  The  snow-covered 
ground  is  the  effect  which  I  observe  and  the  unobserved  fall 
of  snow  during  the  night  is  the  only  possible  cause  for  this 
effect.  If  a  friend  who  has  not  yet  seen  the  snow  disputes 
my  assertion  that  there  was  a  snowfall  during  the  night  by 
saying  that  it  is  too  warm  to  snow,  I  may  effectively  establish 
my  argument  and  refute  his  own  by  calling  him  to  the  window 
and  pointing  to  the  snow.  I  should  point  to  the  effect  as 
estabhshing  the  existence  of  the  cause.  This  would  be  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  truth  of  my  statement. 

The  argument  from  effect  to  cause  is  based  upon  things 
observed  after  the  disputed  fact.  This  process  is  called  a 
posteriori  reasoning  which  means  reasoning  front  that  which 
comes  after.    This  is  the  process  of  reasoning  employed  by 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION  209 

the  detective  in  tracing  a  criminal.  The  detective  by  means 
of  skillful  observations  taken  after  a  crime  is  committed 
reasons  back  to  the  person  who  is  guilty.  The  fact  that  the 
criminal  has  usually  made  an  attempt  to  avoid  leaving  any 
traces  that  may  be  used  as  a  basis  of  a  posteriori  reasoning 
makes  this  process  a  most  interesting  one  and  accounts  for 
much  of  the  popularity  of  detective  stories. 

This  use  of  reasoning  from  effect  to  cause  was  first  popu- 
larized by  the  detective  stories  of  Edgar  Allan  Poe  and  ap- 
pears to  have  reached  its  chmax  in  the  Adventures  of  Sherlock 
Holmes,  the  creation  of  Sir  A.  Conan  Doyle.  Sherlock  Holmes 
possesses  remarkable  powers  of  observation.  He  notices 
that  a  young  lady  who  calls  to  see  him  has  finger  tips  that 
are  slightly  spatulate.  From  this  effect  he  reasons  back  to 
the  cause  and  determines  that  it  is  the  result  of  much  use  of 
the  piano.  From  this  and  other  observations  he  reasons  that 
the  young  lady  is  a  musician.  He  observes  that  a  farmer 
has  a  certain  kind  of  mud  on  his  boots  and  reasons  that  the 
man  has  just  come  from  a  particular  town  near  London 
where  such  mud  is  to  be  found.  The  certain  kind  of  mud  on 
the  farmer's  boots  is  the  effect;  the  recent  presence  of  the 
farmer  in  that  particular  town  near  London  is  the  cause. 
Observing  the  effect  Holmes  reasons  back  to  the  cause,  or 
in  other  words,  he  constructs  an  argument  from  effect  to 
cause. 

The  apphcation  of  this  process  of  reasoning  to  the  practice 
of  argumentation  and  debate  is  easily  seen.  The  politician 
who  says  that  the  high  cost  of  living  is  due  to  the  growth  of 
monopolies  employs  an  argument  from  effect  {i.  e.,  the  high 
cost  of  living)  to  cause  {i.  e.,  the  growth  of  monopolies).  The 
minister  who  declares  that  the  prevalence  of  drunkenness  is 
due  to  the  licensed  saloon  expounds  an  argument  from  effect 
(i.  e.,  the  prevalence  of  drunkenness)  to  cause  {i.  e.,  the  li- 
censed saloon).    The  student  who  asserts  that  his  class  dues 


2IO  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

are  excessive  because  the  business  of  the  class  is  poorly  man- 
aged uses  an  argument  from  effect  (i.  e.,  excessive  class  dues) 
to  cause  {i.  e.,  poor  management). 

In  order  to  be  sound  an  argument  from  effect  to  cause  must 
conform  to  the  following. requirements: 

I.  The  alleged  cause  must  he  sufficient  to  produce  the  effect. 

When  the  existence  of  a  definite  cause  is  alleged  to  have 
produced  an  observed  effect,  the  burden  of  proving  the  suffi- 
ciency of  that  cause  rests  upon  him  who  asserts  its  operation. 
No  fault  of  reasoning  is  more  common  than  that  of  regarding 
an  insufficient  cause  as  sufficient.  If  a  man  is  successful  we 
attribute  his  success  to  one  quality,  such  as  perseverance; 
whereas  his  success  may  be  due  to  a  combination  of  qualities. 
There  may  be  a  hundred  other  men  who  possess  more  per- 
severance and  yet  fail.  When  a  financial  panic  occurs  we 
attribute  it  to  the  rule  of  a  certain  political  party;  whereas 
the  action  of  that  party  may  have  been  the  smallest  of  the 
factors  causing  the  panic.  Perseverance  may  be  a  quality 
contributing  to  success,  but  perseverance  alone  is  not  suflS- 
cient  to  secure  success.  The  action  of  a  political  party  may 
aid  in  producing  a  panic,  but  seldom  are  conditions  such 
that  its  action  alone  is  sufficient  to  produce  a  panic.  The 
question  of  what  is  sui95cient  cause  demands  the  exercise 
of  sound  judgment.  A  fall  of  three  feet  would  hardly  be 
regarded  as  a  sufficient  cause  for  the  death  of  a  man ;  a  fall 
of  one  hundred  feet  would  be  regarded  as  sufficient  cause 
for  his  death.  Between  these  two  extremes  the  individual 
judgment  considering  other  circumstances  connected  with 
such  an  event,  must  determine  the  adequacy  of  the  cause 
to  produce  the  result  in  any  given  case.  It  is  therefore 
plain  that  the  debater  who  points  to  a  result  as  pro- 
duced by  a  definite  cause  must  show  the  adequacy  of  that 
cause. 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION  2ll 

2.  No  other  cause  must  have  intervened  between  the  alleged  cause 
and  the  effect. 

A  clear  field  must  be  shown  for  the  operation  of  the  alleged 
cause.  This  can  be  done  by  proving  that  no  other  cause 
could  have  produced  the  observed  effect.  Other  causes  which 
might  possibly  have  produced  the  effect  must  be  shown  to 
have  been  inoperative  or  inadequate.  For  example,  a  student 
fails  in  his  studies.  He  is  called  before  the  delinquent  board 
of  the  faculty  and  explains  his  failure  by  arguing  that  he  has 
had  poor  health.  He  alleges  poor  health  as  the  cause  of  the 
observed  effect — the  failure  in  his  studies.  A  member  of  the 
board,  however,  is  skeptical  regarding  the  validity  of  the 
argument  and  asks  him  if  it  is  not  true  that  each  week  he 
attends  the  theatre  at  least  once  and  sometimes  as  often  as 
four  times.  The  student  is  forced  to  admit  that  such  is  the 
case.  Further  inquiry  reveals  the  fact  that  he  has  been 
attending  a  dancing  school  one  night  each  week;  that  he 
belongs  to  a  club  which  meets  every  Tuesday  and  Friday 
night;  and  that  he  is  known  to  spend  much  of  his  time  in  a 
public  billiard  room.  These  facts  show  an  independent  cause 
(i.  e.,  general  dissipation)  which  has  intervened  between  the 
alleged  cause  (i.  e.  poor  health)  and  the  effect  (i.  e.,  failure 
in  his  studies).  The  student  has  therefore  failed  to  prove 
his  argument  that  poor  health,  which  is  a  legitimate  cause, 
is  responsible  for  his  failure.  The  evidence  shows  that  gen- 
eral dissipation,  which  is  not  a  legitimate  cause,  has  inter- 
vened between  the  alleged  cause  and  the  effect. 

If  the  student  had  been  able  to  show  that  he  had  been 
diligent  in  his  efforts,  had  attended  to  business  in  a  reasonable 
manner,  and  that  his  previous  record  had  been  satisfactory 
he  would  have  established  his  argument  that  ill  health  was 
the  cause  of  his  failure.  In  every  argument  from  effect  to 
cause  the  adequacy  of  the  alleged  cause  must  first  be  sliown 
and  then  evidence  must  be  produced  estabhshing  the  fact 


212  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

that  no  cause,   other  than  the  one  alleged,  produced  the 
effect. 

3 .  The  alleged  cause  must  not  have  been  prevented  from  operating. 

As  stated  in  the  preceding  section  the  alleged  cause  must 
have  a  clear  field  for  action.  Not  only  must  no  other  cause 
have  intervened  to  produce  the  effect  attributed  to  the  alleged 
cause,  but  no  forces  must  have  intervened  to  prevent  the 
alleged  cause  from  operating.  Any  circumstance  which 
appears  to  have  prevented  the  operation  of  the  alleged 
cause  should  be  examined  carefully.  One  morning  a  man 
was  found  dead  near  the  railroad.  As  there  were  some 
bruises  on  his  body,  the  cause  of  his  death  was  attributed 
to  his  being  struck  by  a  local  freight  which  passed  that  point 
at  midnight.  No  other  train  passed  over  this  road  at  night 
and  the  man  had  been  killed  sometime  within  six  or  eight 
hours  of  the  time  when  he  was  found.  The  case  seemed 
clear.  The  result  (death)  was  apparently  due  to  the  alleged 
cause  (a  freight  train).  Investigation,  however,  revealed 
tha  fact  that  the  freight  train  had  not  run  that  night  on  ac- 
count of  a  wreck  on  a  branch  line.  Therefore  an  outside 
force, — viz.,  the  wreck,  had  prevented  the  alleged  cause  from 
operating.  Hence  it  could  not  be  the  true  cause.  The  in- 
quiry into  the  alleged  cause  ultimately  resulted  in  the  re- 
vealing of  the  true  cause — willful  murder. 

In  arguing  from  effect  to  cause  the  adequacy  of  the  alleged 
cause  must  be  proved,  the  fact  that  no  other  cause  intervened 
between  the  alleged  cause  and  the  observed  effect  must  be 
clearly  demonstrated,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  case  must 
show  that  the  alleged  cause  was  not  prevented  from  operat- 
ing. With  these  requirements  fulfilled  such  an  argument 
may  be  regarded  as  sound.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  applica- 
tion of  these  rules  requires  sound  judgment  and  practical 
common  sense.    The  argument  will  be  effective  in  persuading 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION  213 

others  only  when  every  requirement  is  met  in  a  plain,  straight- 
forward manner. 

n.  Argument  from  cause  to  effect. 

The  argument  from  cause  to  effect  is  one  which  relies  upon 
an  observed  cause  to  prove  or  foretell  the  existence  of  an 
unobserved  effect.  For  example,  I  observe  that  the  tempera- 
ture is  very  low;  the  thermometer  registers  below  zero  and  the 
exposed  parts  of  my  body  tingle  with  cold  when  I  am  out  of 
doors.  This  is  a  cause  of  several  effects.  One  of  them  is  that 
the  pond  near  my  home  will  be  frozen  over.  I  observe  the 
cause  {i.  e.,  the  low  temperature)  and  at  once  state  the  effect 
(/.  e.,  the  ice  on  the  pond).  The  process  by  which  I  reached 
this  conclusion  is  called  a  priori  reasoning.  The  conclusion 
Is  based  upon  circumstances  observed  before  the  disputed 
fact.  Likewise,  I  observe  that  it  is  now  beginning  to  rain 
and  that  appearances  indicate  a  heavy  downpour.  I  at 
once  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  path  across  the 
meadow  will  be  muddy  when  I  pass  over  it  in  half  an  hour 
from  now. 

This  case  differs  from  the  preceding  one  only  in  the  fact 
that  in  the  first  case  the  effect  existed  when  the  cause  was 
observed,  whereas  in  the  latter  case  the  effect  did  not  exist 
when  the  cause  was  observed.  In  both  cases  the  observed 
cause  is  the  basis  for  determining  the  unobserved  effect. 
In  this  way  we  may  reason  from  the  past  to  the  present, 
from  the  remote  past  to  the  less  remote  past,  from  the  present 
to  the  future,  from  the  near  future  to  the  more  remote  future, 
or  from  the  past  to  the  future. 

The  student  will  doubtless  have  observed  that  the  argu- 
ment from  cause  to  effect  as  well  as  that  from  effect  to  cause 
is  a  special  form  of  deduction.  The  syllogistic  form  may  be 
applied  to  either  of  these  processes  of  reasoning  for  the  pur- 
pose of  testing  their  strength.    Applying  the  syllogistic  form 


214  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

to  the  a  priori  reasoning  involved  in  one  of  the  preceding 
illustrations  we  have: 

A.  Low  temperature  is  always  followed  by  the  forming  of 

ice. 

B.  This  is  low  temperature. 

C.  Therefore  it  is  followed  by  the  forming  of  ice. 

Applying  the  syllogistic  form  to  the  a  posteriori  reasoning 
involved  in  one  of  the  examples  given  under  the  discussion  of 
that  process  we  have: 

A.  All  times  when  the  ground  is  covered  with  snow  are 

times  when  there  has  been  a  snowfall. 

B.  This  is  a  time  when  the  ground  is  covered  with  snow. 

C.  Therefore  this  is  a  time  when  there  has  been  a  snowfall. 

For  the  purpose  of  extreme  simplicity  we  may  represent 
these  two  processes  by  the  following  formula: 

I.  A  posteriori  reasoning. 

1.  A  is  preceded  by  B 

2.  This  is  A 

3.  Therefore  it  is  preceded  by  B. 

II.  A  priori  reasoning. 

1.  A  \s  followed  by  B 

2.  This  is  A 

3.  Therefore  it  is  followed  by  B. 

The  advocates  of  a  high  protective  tariff  argue  that  if  the 
tariff  is  removed  financial  disaster  will  overwhelm  the  country. 
They  support  this  contention  by  showing  that  the  large 
manufacturing  industries  are  now  able  to  sell  their  products 
at  a  reasonable  price;  import  duties  prevent  foreign  manu- 
facturers from  shipping  their  goods  into  this  country  and 
selling  them  much  cheaper  than  our  manufacturers  can  make 
them.    But  if  the  tariff  is  removed  foreign  made  goods  will 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION  215 

drive  out  American  made  goods,  as  the  foreign  goods  can  be 
sold  much  cheaper.  Therefore  factories  and  mills  must 
cease  operations  because  there  will  be  no  demand  for  their 
products.  Workmen  will  be  thrown  out  of  employment  and 
capital  will  be  idle.  Starvation  will  overtake  the  working 
man  and  financial  ruin  will  overtake  the  business  man.  This 
is  a  typical  example  of  an  argument  from  cause  to  effect. 
The  operation  of  the  cause  (the  removal  of  the  protective 
tariff)  will  produce  the  alleged  effect  (industrial  disaster). 
This  argument  appears  to  be  valid,  but  an  equally  plausible 
argument  may  be  constructed  against  protection.  We  must, 
therefore,  look  at  the  foundations  of  each  argument  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  its  validity.  As  in  the  case  of  argu- 
ment from  effect  to  cause  we  must  exercise  sound  judgment 
in  applying  certain  requirements  to  each  particular  argument. 
An  argument  from  cause  to  effect  must  conform  to  the  fol- 
lowing requirements: 

1.  The  observed  cause  must  he  sufficient  to  produce  the  alleged 

effect. 
This  requirement  implies  absolute  sufl&ciency  of  cause, 
not  probable  sufficiency.  Habitual  inattention  to  business 
or  professional  duties  is  a  sure  cause  for  failure.  Habitual 
drunkenness  is  a  sure  cause  for  ill  health.  Being  run  over 
by  a  locomotive  is  a  sure  cause  of  death.  There  may  be -some 
exceptions  to  the  above  general  rules,  but  the  certainty  of 
the  effect  following  the  cause  is  so  great  that  for  all  practical 
purposes  we  may  rely  absolutely  upon  the  sequence. 

2.  When  past  experience  is  invoked  it  must  show  that  the  alleged 

effect  has  always  followed  the  observed  cause. 
An  observed  cause  may  possibly  have  an  alleged  effect 
even  though  there  is  not  one  chance  in  a  thousand  that  it 
will  have  this  effect.    No  valid  argument  can  be  constructed 


2l6  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

upon  such  a  chance.  In  pure  science  this  rule  is  absolute. 
A  combination  of  the  same  chemicals  under  the  same  condi- 
tions always  produces  the  same  effect.  The  bringing  of  a 
magnet  near  a  piece  of  steel  always  results  in  the  same  effect 
so  far  as  the  force  which  one  exerts  upon  the  other  is  con- 
cerned. When  we  depart  from  the  realm  of  exact  science  the 
working  out  of  the  rule  becomes  less  certain.  Nevertheless, 
if  human  experience  has  sanctioned  the  adoption  of  the  rule 
we  may  rely  upon  it  even  though  there  are  exceptions.  A 
rise  in  the  tax  rate  is  always  followed  by  more  revenue  to 
the  government.  A  scarcity  in  the  supply  of  iron  is  always 
followed  by  a  rise  in  the  price.  A  drouth  in  the  wheat  belt 
is  always  followed  by  an  increase  in  the  price  of  flour.  There 
may  be  exceptions  to  these  examples,  but  the  exceptions  are 
so  few  and  the  number  of  instances  supporting  the  rule  is 
so  great  that  we  feel  safe  in  relying  upon  it.  It  is  this  kind 
of  certainty,  rather  than  the  absolute  certainty  of  science, 
which  argumentation  demands. 

3.  No  force  must  intervene  to  prevent  the  observed  cause  from 
operating  to  produce  the  alleged  effect. 
A  drouth  in  the  wheat  belt  naturally  causes  an  advance 
in  the  price  of  flour.  Past  experience  has  proved  this  to  be 
the  case,  and,  furthermore,  the  cause  is  adequate  to  produce 
the  alleged  effect.  Nevertheless,  a  lowering  of  the  duty  on 
wheat  might  permit  wheat  from  foreign  countries  to  be  im- 
ported in  such  quantities  that  there  would  be  no  rise  in  the 
price  of  flour.  The  lowering  of  the  duty  on  wheat  would  be 
another  force  intervening  to  prevent  the  observed  cause  (the 
drouth  in  the  wheat  belt)  from  producing  the  alleged  effect 
(the  rise  in  the  price  of  flour).  Therefore  we  must  always 
examine  the  circumstances  of  each  case  to  determine  whether 
there  are  any  forces  at  work  which  will  prevent  the  observed 
cause  from  producing  the  alleged  effect. 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CA  USA L  RELA  TION  2 1 7 

4.  The  conclusion  established  should  he  verified  by  positive  evi- 
dence wherever  possible. 

After  all  the  other  tests  have  been  satisfied  the  argument 
from  cause  to  effect  may  be  established  or  overthrown  by  the 
production  of  positive  evidence.  A  disappears  and  B  is  ac- 
cused of  his  murder.  A  perfect  case  is  made  out  and  B  is 
convicted  and  sentenced  to  death.  Then  A  suddenly  appears. 
The  innocence  of  B  is  effectively  established.  Cases  of  this 
kind  are  not  unknown  to  the  criminal  law,  though  unfortu- 
nately the  missing  man  is  usually  discovered  after  his 
supposed  murderer  has  been  put  to  death.  This  illustration 
suggests  that  too  much  care  cannot  be  exercised  in  substan- 
tiating an  argument  from  cause  to  effect. 

The  argument  from  cause  to  effect  is  most  frequently  em- 
ployed in  criminal  trials.  In  such  cases  the  motive  for  com- 
mitting the  crime  is  regarded  as  the  cause  and  the  crime  as 
the  effect.  The  argument  is  usually  begun  by  proving  the 
existence  of  strong  motives  such  as  an  abnormal  desire  to 
acquire  more  money  or  property,  to  work  revenge  on  bitter 
enemies,  or  to  avert  financial  or  domestic  disaster.  With 
these  strong  motives  shown  it  is  easy  to  connect  them  with 
the  crime.  This  is  the  method  of  argument  from  cause  to 
effect  which  is  used  by  Daniel  Webster  in  the  White  murder 
trial.  He  showed  clearly  that  the  Knapps  believed  that  they 
could  obtain  the  fortune  of  White  by  destroying  his  last  will 
and  murdering  him.  He  argued  that  this  was  the  cause 
which  produced  the  effect  of  murder.  The  following  extract 
from  Webster's  speech  before  the  jury  will  show  the  appHca- 
tion  made  of  the  argument  from  cause  to  effect. 

"When  we  look  back,  then,  to  the  state  of  things  immedi- 
ately on  the  discovery  of  the  murder,  we  see  that  suspicion 
would  naturally  turn  at  once,  not  to  the  heirs  at  law,  but  to 
those  principally  benefited  by  the  will.  They,  and  they  alone, 
would  be  supposed  to  have  a  direct  object  for  wishing  Mr. 


2l8  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

White's  life  terminated.  And,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  we 
find  counsel  now  insisting,  that,  if  no  apology,  it  is  yet  miti' 
gation  of  the  atrocity  of  the  Kjiapps'  conduct  in  attempting 
to  charge  this  foul  murder  on  Mr.  White,  the  nephew  and 
principal  devisee,  that  public  suspicion  was  already  so  di- 
rected. As  if  assassination  of  character  were  excusable  in 
proportion  as  circumstances  may  render  it  easy.  Their  en- 
deavors, when  they  knew  they  were  suspected  themselves, 
to  fix  the  charge  on  others,  by  foul  means  and  by  falsehood, 
are  fair  and  strong  proof  of  their  own  guilt. 

"The  counsel  say  that  they  might  safely  admit  that 
Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  was  the  perpetrator  of  this 
murder. 

"But  how  could  they  safely  admit  that?  If  that  were  ad- 
mitted everything  else  would  follow.  For  why  should  Richard 
Crowninshield,  Jr.,  kill  Mr.  White?  He  was  not  his  heir; 
nor  was  he  his  devisee;  nor  his  enemy.  What  could  be  his 
motive?  If  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  killed  Mr.  White  he 
did  it  at  some  one's  procurement  who  himself  had  a  motive. 
And  who  having  any  motive,  is  shown  to  have  had  any  inter- 
course With.  Richard  Crowninshield,  Jr.,  but  Joseph  Knapp 
and  this  principally  through  the  agency  of  the  prisoner  at  the 
bar?  It  is  the  infirmity,  the  distressing  difiiculty  of  the 
prisoner's  case,  that  his  counsel  cannot  and  dare  not  admit 
what  they  yet  cannot  disprove,  and  what  all  must  believe. 
He  who  believes,  on  this  evidence,  that  Richard  Crownin- 
shield, Jr.,  was  the  immediate  murderer  cannot  doubt  that 
both  the  Knapps  were  conspirators  in  that  murder." 

III.  Argument  from  effect  to  efifect. 

An  argument  from  effect  to  effect  is  one  in  which  an  argu- 
ment from  effect  to  cause  is  combined  with  an  argument 
from  cause  to  effect.  To  illustrate  this  kind  of  argument  we 
may  explain  a  simple  example  frequently  used  in  this  connec- 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION  219 

tion.  A  boy  announces  that  there  is  skating  this  morning 
because  the  thermometer  registers  below  zero.  Now  the 
thermometer  registering  below  zero  is  not  the  cause  of  the 
skating.  Both  the  registering  of  the  thermometer  and  the 
skating  are  the  effects  of  a  common  cause,  viz. — low  tempera- 
ture. The  boy  has  observed  one  of  the  effects  and  at  once 
concludes  that  the  other  effect  must  exist.  His  is  an  argu- 
ment from  effect  to  effect,  or  to  be  more  exact,  an  argument 
from  one  effect  of  a  cause  to  another  effect  of  the  same  cause. 
The  whole  process  of  reasoning  involved  as  well  as  the  rela- 
tion between  the  two  parts  of  an  argument  from  effect  to 
effect  may  be  represented  by  the  following  tabulation: 

A .  A  rgument  from  effect  to  cause. 

1.  All  times  when  the  thermometer  registers  below  zero 
are  times  when  the  temperature  is  far  below  freezing. 

2.  This  is  a  time  when  the  thermometer  registers  below 
zero. 

3.  Therefore  this  is  a  time  when  the  temperature  is  far 
below  freezing. 

B.  Argument  from  cause  to  effect. 

1.  All  times  when  the  temperature  is  far  below  freezing  are 
times  when  skating  ice  is  formed. 

2.  This  is  a  time  when  the  temperature  is  far  below  freezing. 

3.  Therefore  this  is  a  time  when  skating  ice  is  formed. 

The  above  analysis  of  the  reasoning  involved  in  an  argu- 
ment from  effect  to  effect  will  suggest  the  method  of  pro- 
cedure to  be  employed  in  testing  its  validity.  The  first  step 
consists  of  dividing  the  argument  into  the  two  essential 
processes  employed,  viz. — argument  from  effect  to  cause, 
and  argument  from  cause  to  effect.  The  second  step  consists 
of  applying  the  rules  already  considered  in  connection  with 
each  of  these  processes  to  the  parts  revealed  by  the  first  step. 
In  this  way  the  validity  of  any  argument  from  effect  to  effect 
may  be  determined. 


2  20  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

SUMMARY   OF  THE   REQUIREMENTS  FOR  ARGUMENTS   FROM  CAUSAL 

RELATION 

I.  Arguments  from  Effect  to  Cause. 

1.  The  alleged  cause  must  be  sufficient  to  produce  the  effect. 

2.  No  other  cause  must  have  intervened  between  the  alleged 

cause  and  the  effect. 

3.  The  alleged  cause  must  not  have  been  prevented  from 

operating. 

II.  Argument  from  Cause  to  Effect. 

1.  The  observed  cause  must  be  sufficient  to  produce  the  alleged 

effect. 

2.  When  past  experience  is  invoked  it  must  show  that  the 

alleged  effect  has  always  followed  the  observed  cause. 

3.  No  other  force  must  intervene  to  prevent  the  observed 

cause  from  operating  to  produce  the  alleged  effect. 

4.  The  conclusion  established  should  be  verffied  by  positive 

evidence  wherever  possible. 

III.  Argument  from  Effect  to  Effect. 

I.  The  argument  must  be  resolved  into  its  two  parts,  the 
argument  from  effect  to  cause,  and  the  argument  from 
cause  to  effect,  and  the  rules  under  I  and  II  appUed. 

EXERCISES  IN  ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION 

I.  State  the  kind  of  argument  involved  in  each  of  the  following 
passages. 

1.  If  a  Socialist  president  is  elected,  financial  disaster  is  sure 

to  overtake  our  country. 

2.  This  has  been  the  coldest  winter  ever  known  in  the  United 

States.  The  rapid  destruction  of  our  forests  is  directly 
responsible  for  this  undesirable  change  of  climate  and  we 
are  to  reap  still  further  evils  from  this  same  cause. 

3.  Since  we  have  conclusive  proof  that  the  savages  of  the 

island  have  murdered  this  missionary,  we  can  no  longer 
be  in  doubt  as  to  what  became  of  his  companions. 

4.  "Every  word  uttered  by  a  speaker  costs  him  some  physical 

loss;  and  in  the  strictest  sense,  he  burns  that  others  may 
have  light — so  much  eloquence,  so  much  of  his  body 
resolved  into  carbonic  acid,  water  and  urea." — Huxley. 

5.  "The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  so  concise  and 

so  general  in  its  terms,  that  even  had  America  been  as 


ARGUMENT  FROM  CAUSAL  RELATION  221 

slowly  moving  a  country  as  China,  many  questions  must 
have  arisen  on  the  interpretation  of  the  fundamental  law 
which  would  have  modified  its  aspect.  But  America 
has  been  the  most  swiftly  expanding  of  all  countries. 
Hence  the  questions  that  have  presented  themselves 
have  often  related  to  matters  which  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  could  not  have  contemplated.  Wiser  than 
Justinian  before  them  or  Napoleon  after  them,  they 
foresaw  that  their  work  would  need  to  be  elucidated  by 
a  judicial  commentary.  But  they  were  far  from  con- 
jecturing the  enormous  strain  to  which  some  of  their 
expressions  would  be  subjected  in  the  effort  to  apply 
them  to  new  facts." — Bryce. 

6.  "The  last  cause  of  this  disobedient  spirit  in  the  colonies  is 

hardly  less  powerful  than  the  rest,  as  it  is  not  merely 
moral  but  laid  deep  in  the  natural  constitution  of  things. 
Three  thousand  miles  of  ocean  lie  between  you  and  them. 
No  contrivance  can  prevent  the  effect  of  this  distance  in 
weakening  government.  Seas  roll  and  months  pass, 
between  the  order  and  the  execution;  and  the  want  of 
a  speedy  explanation  of  a  single  point  is  enough  to  de- 
feat a  whole  system." — Burke. 

7.  "Permit  me,  Sir,  to  add  another  circumstance  in  our 

colonies,  which  contributes  no  mean  part  towards  the 
growth  and  effect  of  this  untractable  spirit.  I  mean 
their  education.  In  no  country  perhaps  in  the  world 
is  the  law  so  general  a  study.  The  profession  itself  is 
numerous  and  powerful;  and  in  most  provinces  it  takes 
the  lead.  The  greater  number  of  the  deputies  sent  to  the 
Congress  were  lawyers.  But  all  who  read  (and  most  do 
read) ,  endeavor  to  obtain  some  smattering  in  that  science. 
I  have  been  told  by  an  eminent  bookseller,  that  in  no 
branch  of  his  business,  after  tracts  of  popular  devotion, 
were  so  many  books  as  those  on  the  law  exported  to  the 
plantations.  The  colonists  have  now  fallen  into  the 
way  of  printing  them  for  their  own  use.  I  hear  that  they 
have  sold  nearly  as  many  of  Blackstone's  Commentaries 
in  America  as  in  England.  General  Gage  marks  out 
this  disposition  very  particularly  in  a  letter  on  your 
table.  He  states  that  all  the  people  in  his  government 
are  lawyers,  or  smatterers  in  the  law;  and  that  in  Boston 


222  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

they  have  been  enabled,  by  successful  chicane,  wholly 
to  evade  many  parts  of  one  of  your  capital  penal  con- 
stitutions. The  smartness  of  debate  will  say  that  this 
knowledge  ought  to  teach  them  more  clearly  the  rights 
of  legislature,  their  obUgation  to  obedience,  and  the 
penalties  of  rebelhon.  All  this  is  mighty  well.  But  my 
honorable  and  learned  friend  on  the  floor,  who  conde- 
scends to  mark  what  I  say  for  animadversion,  will  disdain 
that  ground.  He  has  heard,  as  well  as  I,  that  when  great 
honors  and  great  emoluments  do  not  win  over  this 
knowledge  to  the  service  of  the  State,  it  is  a  formidable 
adversary  to  Government.  If  the  spirit  be  not  tamed 
and  broken  by  these  happy  methods,  it  is  stubborn  and 
Utigious.  Abeunt  studia  in  mores.  This  study  renders 
men  acute,  inquisitive,  dexterous,  prompt  in  attack, 
ready  in  defence,  full  of  resources.  In  other  countries, 
the  people,  more  simple,  and  of  a  less  mercurial  cast, 
judge  of  an  ill  principle  in  government  only  by  an  actual 
grievance;  here  they  anticipate  the  evil,  and  judge  of 
the  pressure  of  the  grievance  by  the  badness  of  the  prin- 
ciple. They  augur  misgovernment  at  a  distance;  and 
snuff  the  approach  of  tyranny  in  every  tainted  breeze." — 
Burke. 

II.  Attach  definite  circumstances  to  each  of  the  foregoing  argu- 
ments and  then  apply  the  requirements  for  vaUdity  to  each  one. 
State  the  results. 

III.  Point  out  the  kind  of  reasoning  which  may  be  employed 
in  reaching  each  of  the  following  conclusions. 

1.  The  record  of  our  debating  teams  as  compared  with  that 

of  our  opponents  shows  that  we  shall  win  this  debate. 

2.  Harold  Small  has  been  put  on  probation. 

3.  Under  these  conditions  an  inheritance  tax  should  be  levied. 

4.  International  arbitration  will  ultimately  take  the  place  of 

war  as  a  method  of  settling  disputes  between  nations. 

IV.  Analyze  completely  the  reasoning  processes  employed  in 
Exercise  HI.  Where  they  may  be  reduced  to  syllogistic  form,  de- 
termine the  validity  of  the  resulting  syllogisms. 

V.  Write  an  argument  from  causal  relation  in  support  of  any 
proposition  which  you  wish  to  discuss.  Employ,  each  of  the  three 
classes  of  argument  from  causal  relation. 


CHAPTER  IV 

ARGUMENT   FROM   ANALOGY 

Analogy  is  such  a  resemblance  between  some  of  the  known 
characteristics  of  two  different  things  as  wdll  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  they  are  alike  in  other  characteristics.  For 
example,  an  egg  and  a  seed  are  two  different  things  but  they 
have  many  characteristics  in  common.  From  the  charac- 
teristics in  which  we  know  that  an  egg  is  like  a  seed  we  reason 
that  they  must  be  alike  in  other  characteristics  which  we 
know  one  to  possess  but  which  we  do  not  know  the  other  to 
possess.  We  know  that  heat  is  required  to  develop  an  egg 
and  by  analogy  we  may  conclude  that  heat  is  required  to 
develop  a  seed.  In  this,  as  in  other  forms  of  reasoning,  we 
proceed  from  the  known  to  the  unknown.  The  basis  of 
inference  is  the  general  resemblance  which  one  thing  bears 
to  another  tiling.  Experience  has  led  us  to  expect  that  when 
we  find  two  different  things  alike  in  many  points  we  shall 
find  them  alike  in  many  other  points  regarding  which  no 
actual  investigation  has  been  made. 

The  argmnent  appUes  the  principle  above  suggested  to 
the  subject-matter  of  the  discussion.  The  standard  illustra- 
tion of  this  form  of  argument  usually  quoted  in  books  of 
logic  and  argumentation  is  found  in  Reid's  Intellectual  Powers. 
It  is  as  follows: — 

"We  may  observe  a  very  great  similitude  between  this 
earth  which  we  inhabit,  and  the  other  planets,  Saturn,  Jupi- 
ter, Mars,  Venus,  and  Mercury.  They  all  revolve  around 
the  sun,  as  the  earth  does,  although  at  different  distances  and 
at  different  periods.    They  borrow  all  their  light  from  the 

223 


224  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

sun,  as  the  earth  does.  Several  of  them  are  known  to  revolve 
on  their  axis  like  the  earth,  and  by  that  means  have  hke 
succession  of  day  and  night.  Some  of  them  have  moons  that 
serve  to  give  them  light  in  the  absence  of  the  sun,  as  our  moon 
does  to  us.  They  are  all  in  their  motions  subject  to  the 
same  law  of  gravitation  as  the  earth  is.  From  all  this  simili- 
tude it  is  not  unreasonable  to  think  that  these  planets  may, 
like  our  earth,  be  the  habitation  of  various  orders  of  living 
creatures.  There  is  some  probability  in  this  conclusion  from 
analogy." 

Another  frequently  quoted  illustration  of  the  argument 
from  analogy  is  the  reply  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  those  who 
urged  him  to  carry  on  the  war  more  vigorously. 

"Gentlemen,  I  want  you  to  suppose  a  case  for  a  moment. 
Suppose  that  all  the  property  you  were  worth  was  in  gold, 
and  you  had  put  it  in  the  hands  of  Blondin,  the  famous  rope- 
walker,  to  carry  across  the  Niagara  Falls  on  a  tight  rope. 
Would  you  shake  the  rope  while  he  was  passing  over  it,  or 
keep  shouting  to  him,  'Blondin,  stoop  a  little  more!  Go  a 
little  faster!'  No,  I  am  sure  you  would  not.  You  would 
hold  your  breath  as  well  as  your  tongue,  and  keep  your  hands 
off  until  he  was  safely  over.  Now  the  government  is  in  the 
same  situation.  It  is  carrying  an  immense  weight  across  a 
stormy  ocean.  Untold  treasures  are  in  its  hands.  It  is  do- 
ing the  best  it  can.  Don't  badger  it!  Just  keep  still  and 
it  will  get  you  safely  over," 

The  argument  from  analogy  is  most  effective  when  a  com- 
parison is  made  to  something  that  is  plain,  ordinary,  and 
commonplace.  In  this  way  abstract  arguments  may  be 
made  simple  and  concrete.  No  debater  of  modern  times  has 
shown  more  discrimination  in  the  use  of  material  which 
would  make  an  analogy  strong  and  convincing  than  has 
Lincoln.  The  strength  of  the  argument  is  greatly  increased 
if  it  is  apparent  that  the  analogy  is  perfect  so  far  as  the  point 


ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY  22$ 

at  issue  is  concerned.  In  the  following  quotation  no  exercise 
of  the  imagination  is  necessary  to  bring  the  two  factors  of 
the  analogy  together.  The  argument  is  presented  by  David 
Dudley  Field  in  favor  of  the  training  of  homeless  children  by 
the  state. 

"The  question  of  safety  is  more  vital  still.  Every  one  of 
these  boys  may  be  a  voter  in  ten  or  twenty  years  hence.  His 
vote  will  then  be  as  potent  as  yours  or  mine.  In  countries 
where  the  sovereign  is  a  prince  it  has  ever  been  thought 
prudent  to  bestow  especial  care  upon  the  training  of  an  heir 
to  the  throne. — Here  the  people  are  sovereign,  and  the  little 
boy,  now  wandering  about  the  streets,  neglected  or  led  astray, 
is  in  one  sense  joint  heir  to  the  throne.  Every  dictate  of 
prudence  points  to  his  being  fitted  to  fulfill  the  duties  of  his 
station." 

The  foregoing  examples  with  the  accompanying  explana- 
tions will  serve  to  make  plain  the  meaning  of  argument  from 
analogy  and  to  suggest  the  innumerable  circumstances  under 
which  it  may  be  used.  Seldom  is  a  situation  encountered  in 
which  an  apt  analogy  cannot  be  employed.  The  homelier 
the  comparison,  the  more  vivid  and  lasting  will  be  the  im- 
pression conveyed,  provided,  of  course,  that  the  analogy  is 
apt  and  appropriate. 

The  search  for  an  appropriate  analogy  is  best  begun  by 
gaining  a  clear  conception  of  the  universal  principle  upon 
which  the  proposition  is  based.  The  student  must  be  able 
to  see  the  broadest  application  of  the  reason  which  he  offers 
in  support  of  any  particular  contention.  Having  grasped 
this  fundamental  principle  it  is  easy  to  see  its  application  in 
other  things  of  a  more  tangible  form  and  which  are  more 
famihar  to  the  average  mind.  For  example,  Lincoln  saw 
that  it  would  not  do  to  pursue  the  Civil  War  too  vigorously. 
He  realized  that  the  government  was  in  a  very  perilous  posi- 
tion, that  every  step  must  be  taken  with  care  and  delibera- 


226  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

tion  and  that  the  least  disturbance  from  those  whose  interests 
were  at  stake  might  mean  failure  and  the  loss  of  everything. 
This  was  the  principle  underlying  the  situation  which  he  was 
facing.  Now,  he  must  make  this  situation  plain  and  its 
gravity  clear  to  those  who  were  demanding  that  he  hasten 
the  progress  of  the  war.  Therefore  he  began  looking  for  the 
application  of  this  principle  in  something  which  was  more 
familiar  and  more  real  and  tangible.  The  newspapers  had 
been  full  of  the  wonderful  feats  of  Blondin,  the  rope-walker. 
In  this  circumstance  Lincoln  saw  an  opportunity  to  give  a 
tangible  exhibition  of  the  appUcation  of  the  principle  under 
wliich  he  was  acting. 

The  argument  from  analogy  which  he  constructed  is  a 
model  of  completeness.  He  compared  abstract  things  which 
could  not  be  seen  and  appreciated  with  tangible  things  wliich 
could  be  seen  and  appreciated.  He  compared  the  Govern- 
ment to  Blondin.  Blondin,  walking  on  a  rope  across  Niagara 
Falls,  was  in  a  very  dangerous  position  where  it  was  necessary 
that  he  move  slowly  and  cautiously  because  the  least  misstep 
would  dash  him  to  destruction.  The  situation  of  the  govern- 
ment was  analogous.  It  was  engaged  in  a  very  dangerous 
undertaking,  a  great  civil  war.  It  had  to  move  slowly  and 
cautiously  because  the  least  misstep  would  mean  destruction. 
In  order  to  make  the  analogy  more  complete  Lincoln  sup- 
posed the  case  of  Blondin  performing  this  feat  carrying  with 
him  all  the  worldly  possessions  of  the  men  who  were  urging 
that  the  war  be  pushed  more  vigorously.  The  government 
was  carrying  out  the  dearest  desire  of  the  people,  the  patriotic 
desire  to  save  the  grandest  of  all  nations.  If  the  government 
failed  it  would  mean  the  blighting  of  their  dearest  hopes  and 
to  many  it  would  mean  financial  ruin.  Therefore  the  analogy 
was  complete  in  that  particular.  Now  these  men  were  here 
in  Washington  doing  the  same  thing  to  the  government  that 
they  would  be  doing  if,  under  the  above  circumstances,  they 


ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY  227 

shook  the  rope  or  scolded  Blondin  while  he  was  walking 
across  Niagara  Falls.  The  forcibleness  of  the  analogy  and 
the  vividness  of  the  impression  which  it  conveyed  was  an 
argument  powerful  enough  to  silence  those  who  were  de- 
manding more  aggressive  action  on  the  part  of  the  govern- 
ment. 

An  argument  from  analogy  is  never  conclusive  proof  of 
the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  proposition.  At  best  it  creates  only 
a  high  degree  of  probability.  Its  greatest  use  is  to  give  force 
and  vividness  to  an  argument  already  established  by  other 
means.  Nevertheless,  its  probative  value  is  great  provided 
it  is  properly  constructed.  The  chance  for  error,  however,  is 
a  constant  source  of  danger  to  him  who  relies  upon  analogy, 
for  the  very  facts  upon  which  it  is  based  may  constitute  the 
reason  for  its  falsity.  A  large  oil  refining  company  was  re- 
cently organized.  People  were  induced  to  buy  stock  in  the 
new  enterprise  by  means  of  argument  from  analogy.  It  was 
argued  that  tliis  company  was  similar  to  the  Standard  Oil 
Company.  Now  it  is  well  known  that  the  Standard  Oil 
Company  pays  large  dividends.  The  argument  was  ad- 
vanced by  the  promoters  of  the  new  organization  that  since 
it  was  similar  to  the  Standard  Oil  Company  and  since  the 
latter  corporation  pays  large  dividends,  therefore  the  new 
corporation  would  pay  large  dividends.  The  analogy,  of 
course,  proved  untrustworthy.  The  companies,  though 
similar  in  many  ways,  were  entirely  different  in  one  essential 
particular  effecting  the  conclusion:  the  old  company  had  en- 
tirely monopolized  the  field  of  activity,  while  the  new  com- 
pany had  no  territory  in  which  to  work.  Thus  a  false  analogy 
led  to  the  loss  of  many  thousands  of  dollars. 

Instances  of  unsound  arguments  from  analogy  might  be 
multipHed  indefinitely.  It  is  therefore  evident  that  certain 
requirements  exist  which  must  be  strictly  complied  with  if 
the  argument  from  analogy  is  to  prove  effective.    The  re- 


228  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

quirements  necessary  for  a  valid  argument  from  analogy  are 
as  follows: 

I.  The  two  factors  in  the  analogy  must  be  alike  in  all 
particulars  which  affect  the  conclusion. 

The  two  factors  in  the  analogy  are  the  thing  about  which 
the  analogy  is  made  and  the  thing  to  which  it  is  compared. 
For  example,  in  the  argument  from  analogy  which  we  have 
quoted  from  Lincoln,  the  first  factor  is  the  position  of  the 
government  during  the  Civil  War  and  the  second  factor  is 
the  rope-walker.  The  former  is  the  thing  about  which  the 
argument  is  made;  the  latter  is  the  thing  to  which  the  first 
factor  is  compared.  These  two  parts  exist  in  every  argument 
from  analogy  and  the  first  requirement  is  that  they  agree  in 
everything  which  affects  the  conclusion.  The  conclusion 
Lincoln  wished  to  establish  was  that  the  government  must 
not  be  disturbed  in  its  action  because  it  was  in  a  dangerous 
position.  A  rope-walker  crossing  Niagara  Falls  must  not  be 
disturbed  because  he  is  in  a  dangerous  position.  These  are 
the  facts  which  affect  the  conclusion  in  each  case.  The  two 
factors  are  alike  in  this  particular. 

From  the  above  example  it  will  be  seen  that  the  two  factors 
must  agree  in  the  essential  particiilars.  What  is  essential 
depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  conclusion  to  be  reached.  In 
particulars  affecting  things  other  than  the  conclusion  to  be 
established,  it  matters  not  whether  they  agree  or  disagree. 
In  comparing  an  illegal  private  monopoly  to  a  highwayman 
the  particular  method  of  robbing  the  victim  is  immaterial. 
The  fact  that  the  two  methods  are  not  exactly  alike  does  not 
weaken  the  force  of  the  analogy. 

Burke  made  use  of  the  argument  from  analogy  in  defend- 
ing the  policy  of  conciliation  which  he  favored.  After  urging 
that  the  colonies  be  granted  representation  in  Parliament, 
he  declared  that  so  far  as  government  was  concerned  there 


ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY  229 

were  four  similar  cases, — Ireland,  Wales,  Chester,  and  Dur- 
ham, He  urged  that  the  acts  of  Parliament  with  regard  to 
these  territories  be  applied  to  America.  He  then  proceeded 
to  show  that  the  analogy  was  sound  by  pointing  out  that  the 
two  factors  agreed  in  all  particulars  which  affected  the  con- 
clusion.   He  said, 

"Are  not  the  people  of  America  as  much  Englishmen  as 
the  Welsh?  The  preamble  of  the  Act  of  Henry  the  Eighth 
says  the  Welsh  speak  a  language  no  way  resembling  that  of 
his  Majesty's  English  subjects.  Are  the  Americans  not  as 
numerous?  If  we  may  trust  the  learned  and  accurate  Judge 
Barrington's  account  of  North  Wales,  and  take  that  as  a 
standard  to  measure  the  rest  there  is  no  comparison.  The 
people  cannot  amount  to  above  200,000,  not  a  tenth  part  of 
the  number  in  the  colonies.  Is  America  in  rebellion?  Wales 
was  hardly  ever  free  from  it.  Have  you  attempted  to  govern 
America  by  penal  statutes?  You  made  fifteen  for  Wales. 
But  your  legislative  authority  is  perfect  with  regard  to 
America.  Was  it  less  perfect  in  Wales,  Chester,  and  Dur- 
ham? But  America  is  virtually  represented.  What!  does 
the  electric  force  of  virtual  representation  more  easily  pass 
over  the  Atlantic  than  pervade  Wales,  which  lies  in  your 
neighborhood — or  than  Chester  and  Durham,  surrounded 
by  an  abundance  of  representation  that  is  actual  and  pal- 
pable? But,  Sir,  your  ancestors  thought  this  sort  of  virtual 
representation,  however  complete,  to  be  totally  insufficient 
for  the  freedom  of  inhabitants  of  territories  that  are  so  near 
and  comparatively  so  inconsiderable.  How  then  can  I  think 
it  sufficient  for  those  which  are  infinitely  greater  and  infinitely 
more  remote?" 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  is  a  slight  difference  in  the 
analogy  here  employed  and  the  one  of  which  Lincoln  made 
use.  In  the  latter  the  factors  are  entirely  unlike,  in  the 
former  they  are  similar.    In  all  analogies  similar  to  that  em- 


230  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

ployed  by  Burke  the  points  of  similarity  in  the  two  factors 
must  be  clearly  shown  to  bear  directly  upon  the  conclusion, 
whereas  if  any  points  of  difference  exist  they  must  be  shown 
to  have  no  vital  bearing  on  the  question  at  issue. 

A  failure  to  observe  this  application  of  the  rule  was  made 
by  a  student  who  argued  that  because  an  income  tax  had 
worked  well  in  other  countries  it  would  work  well  in  the 
United  States,  His  opponent  pointed  out  the  unsoundness 
of  the  analogy  by  showing  that  the  income  tax  proposed 
for  the  United  States  was  a  progressive  tax,  whereas  the 
income  tax  in  the  foreign  countries  cited  was  not  a  progres- 
sive tax.  He  further  revealed  the  falsity  of  the  analogy  by 
showing  that  the  proposed  income  tax  for  the  United  States 
was  to  be  levied  by  the  national  or  Federal  government, 
whereas  the  income  tax  in  the  foreign  countries  cited  was 
levied  by  the  states  or  smaller  governmental  units  of  those 
countries.  The  analogy  was  shown  to  be  false  in  that  the  two 
factors  did  not  agree  in  all  particulars  affecting  the  conclusion 
because  (i)  in  one  factor  the  tax  was  progressive  while  in 
the  other  it  was  not,  and  (2)  in  one  factor  the  tax  was  levied 
by  the  national  government  and  in  the  other  it  was  not. 

The  argument  from  analogy  can  be  made  stronger  if  it  is 
shown  that  what  is  true  of  the  analogous  case  is  much  more 
likely  to  be  true  and  to  be  true  in  a  greater  degree,  of  the  case 
in  dispute.  The  example  of  analogy  quoted  from  Burke 
shows  this  phase  of  the  process.  Some  writers  call  this  process 
an  intensification  of  the  argument  from  analogy.  In  logic 
it  is  a  fortiori  reasoning.  The  Scriptures  abound  in  this  kind 
of  argument,  such  as  "Are  not  two  sparrows  sold  for  a  farth- 
ing? and  one  of  them  shall  not  fall  on  the  ground  without 
your  Father.  Fear  ye  not  therefore;  ye  are  of  more  value 
than  many  sparrows."  Another  passage  illustrating  the 
intensification  of  the  argument  from  analogy  is,  "Consider 
the  ravens;  for  they  neither  sow  nor  reap;  which  neither  have 


ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY  231 

storehouse  nor  barn;  and  God  feedeth  them;  how  much  more 
are  ye  better  than  the  fowls?  " 

In  a  debate  on  the  proposition,  "Resolved,  that  courses  of 
instruction  in  the  care  and  training  of  children  should  form 
a  part  of  the  curriculum  of  every  college  and  university,"  a 
speaker  for  the  aflfirmative  developed  an  analogy  based  upon 
the  similarity  between  such  a  course  and  the  practical  courses 
in  the  College  of  Agriculture  on  the  raising  of  live  stock.  He 
then  gave  force  to  his  analogy  by  suggesting  that  if  it  were 
worth  while  to  give  college  courses  dealing  with  the  raising 
of  colts,  calves,  and  pigs,  it  certainly  would  be  much  more 
worth  while  to  give  courses  dealing  with  the  raising  of  chil- 
dren. 

II.  The  alleged  facts  upon  which  the  analogy  is  based 
must  be  true. 

The  facts  alleged  to  be  true  in  regard  to  each  of  the  factors 
in  the  analogy  must  be  true  as  a  matter  of  fact.  A  deviation 
from  the  truth  in  either  factor  will  invalidate  the  conclusion. 
In  arguing  in  favor  of  the  municipal  ownership  and  operation 
of  the  street  railway  system  in  an  eastern  city  a  debater  de- 
clared that  the  proposed  plan  would  be  successful  because  it 
had  been  tried  in  Chicago  with  great  success.  He  then  spent 
much  time  in  showing  that  so  far  as  street  railway  ownership 
was  concerned  conditions  in  the  two  cities  were  exactly  aUke. 
This  argument  from  analogy,  however,  was  promptly  over- 
thrown by  the  next  speaker,  who  introduced  evidence  which 
proved  that  the  city  of  Chicago  did  not  own  its  street  railway 
system.  The  analogy  was  unsound  because  one  of  the  al- 
leged facts  upon  which  it  was  based  was  not  true. 

The  above  example  illustrates  one  of  the  chief  sources  of 
error  in  the  use  of  this  class  of  argument.  The  student  must 
be  constantly  on  his  guard  when  inspecting  his  own  work  and 
that  of  his  opponent.    The  argument  from  analogy  demands 


232  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

extensive  and  accurate  knowledge  of  both  the  factors  involved 
and  the  result  is  almost  always  in  favor  of  him  whose  knowl- 
edge of  the  subject-matter  is  the  most  comprehensive.  The 
temptation  to  color  the  facts  in  order  to  fit  the  analogy  is 
sometimes  great  and  to  refrain  from  deceiving  one's  self  as 
well  as  one's  hearers  requires  a  high  degree  of  intellectual 
honesty.  In  no  other  form  of  argument  is  the  demand  for 
absolute  impartiality  more  imperative.  An  analogy  which 
extends  beyond  the  sound  foundation  of  real  facts  is  a  con- 
stant source  of  danger  both  for  him  who  proposes  it  and  for 
him  who  receives  it.  All  the  alleged  facts  upon  which  this 
kind  of  argument  is  based  must  be  true. 

III.  The  conclusion  established  by  analogy  should  be 
verified  by  positive  evidence  whenever  possible. 

The  suggestion  has  already  been  made  that  no  matter  how 
perfect  an  analogy  may  be,  it  can  never  amount  to  absolute 
proof.  At  its  best  analogy  creates  only  a  high  degree  of 
probability.  In  order  to  strengthen  the  conclusion  a  diligent 
search  should  be  made  for  other  lines  of  reasoning  which  will 
fortify  it.  One  of  the  most  important  uses  to  which  analogy 
may  be  put  is  to  suggest  possible  conclusions  which  may  be 
substantiated  by  other  processes  of  reasoning,  as  induction, 
deduction,  or  causal  relation.  If  two  or  more  lines  of  reason- 
ing can  be  made  to  support  the  same  conclusion  the  proba- 
bility of  its  truth  is  greatly  strengthened;  hence  its  argumen- 
tative value  is  increased.  Where  all  available  processes  of 
reasoning  may  be  made  to  establish  one  conclusion  the 
probability  of  its  truth  is  so  strengthened  that  it  amounts  to 
moral  certainty,  but  no  cumulation  of  probabilities  can  ever 
amount  to  absolute  certainty. 

The  fact  that  analogy  must  be  substantiated  by  other 
processes  of  reasoning  should  not  lead  the  student  to  under- 
estimate its  importance.     The  examples  and  explanations 


ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY  233 

which  have  been  given  should  lead  him  to  appreciate  fully 
the  fact  that  analogy  has  two  well  defined  uses  aside  from 
its  value  as  proof  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  conclusion.  In 
the  first  place  it  is  a  most  important  agency  in  suggesting 
conclusions  which  may  be  verified  or  discredited  by  other 
processes  of  reasoning.  In  the  second  place  it  affords  a  most 
valuable  method  of  stating  a  case  so  plainly  that  even  the 
most  ignorant  may  understand.  A  striking  analogy  makes 
a  most  vivid  impression  on  the  mind  and  is  retained  long 
after  more  formal  processes  of  reasoning  are  forgotten. 

SUMMARY  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  AN  ARGUMENT  FROM  ANALOGY 

I.  The  two  factors  in  the  analogy  must  be  alike  in  all  particulars 

which  affect  the  conclusion. 

II.  The  alleged  facts  upon  which  the  analogy  is  based  must  be 

true. 

III.  The  conclusion  estabHshed  by  analogy  should  whenever 
possible  be  verified  by  positive  evidence. 

EXERCISES  IN  ANALOGY 

I.  Apply  the  requirements  for  validity  to  each  of  the  arguments 
from  analogy  quoted  in  this  last  chapter. 

II.  Suggest  arguments  from  analogy  in  support  of  each  of  the 
following  conclusions: 

1.  College  students  should  be  allowed  to  select  their  own 

courses  of  study. 

2.  A  course  in  public  speaking  is  a  necessity  for  those  who  ex- 

pect to  teach. 

3.  The  greatest  moral  strength  is  fostered  among  many  temp- 

tations. 

4.  An  inheritance  tax  is  an  exceedingly  just  method  of  taxa- 

tion. 

5.  All  colleges  should  be  coeducational. 

6.  Military  drill  should  be  compulsory  for  all  college  freshmen. 

7.  The  use  of  clear  and  correct  EngHsh  is  a  prerequisite  to 

success  in  any  profession. 

III.  Write  an  argument  from  analogy  in  support  of  one  of  the 
propositions  given  in  the  appendix. 


CHAPTER  V 

FALLACIES 

A  fallacy  is  an  error  in  the  argumentative  process.  It  may 
arise  from  a  mistake  in  the  process  of  reasoning  or  from  a 
mistake  regarding  the  facts  upon  which  the  reasoning  is 
based.  The  task  of  detecting  and  eliminating  fallacies  in  his 
own  argument  and  of  detecting  and  exposing  fallacies  in  the 
argument  of  his  opponent  is  one  of  the  most  important 
phases  of  a  debater's  work. 

Self-evident  fallacies  are  few.  A  fallacy  is  almost  always 
concealed  under  cover  of  language  which  makes  it  appear  in 
the  guise  of  valid  reasoning.  It  is  usually  embedded  in  an 
otherwise  sound  argumentative  structure.  To  detect  and  to 
separate  it  from  that  which  is  entirely  trustworthy  is  one  of 
the  severest  tests  of  argumentative  skill.  Just  as  in  a  mathe- 
matical computation  one  wrong  figure  will  invalidate  the 
accuracy  of  the  result  though  all  the  other  iigures  be  correct, 
so  will  one  false  statement  in  an  argument  produce  the  same 
disastrous  effect.  A  fallacy  may  occupy  but  a  very  small 
part  of  the  argument  and  yet  be  fatal  to  the  solidity  of  the 
entire  structure.  It  may  consist  of  only  one  sentence  in 
several  pages  of  printed  matter.  It  may  be  but  a  single  state- 
ment which  makes  an  unwarranted  transition  or  assumption. 
Nevertheless  it  is  as  fatal  to  the  argument  as  though  it  com- 
prised a  greater  part  of  the  entire  discussion. 

While  an  opponent  may  cover  up  a  fallacy  with  the  de- 
liberate intention  to  deceive,  yet  the  existence  of  most  falla- 
cies is  not  suspected  by  those  who  use  them.  Therefore  the 
use  of  fallacious  arguments  is  seldom  evidence  of  dishonesty 

234 


FALLACIES  235 

but  is  almost  always  the  result  of  careless  reasoning  or  in- 
ability to  detect  and  remedy  such  errors.  To  classify  fallacies 
into  groups  for  the  purpose  of  discussion  is  a  most  difficult 
undertaking.  Any  division  that  can  be  made  will  not  prove 
all  inclusive  and  all  exclusive  in  practical  appHcation.  Hard 
and  fast  divisions  are  sure  to  overlap,  and  a  particular  fallacy 
may  be  treated  under  one  division  or  another  according  to 
the  standpoint  of  the  student  and  the  combination  of  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  exists.  For  the  purpose  of  this 
discussion  we  shall  divide  fallacies  according  to  the  kind  of 
argument  in  which  they  occur  and  according  to  the  form  in 
wliich  they  are  usually  found.  This  method  of  division  will 
best  serve  our  practical  object,  which  is  the  detecting  and 
eliminating  of  fallacies. 

I.  Fallacies  of  Induction. 

In  a  perfect  induction  a  fallacy  may  be  detected  by  scru- 
tinizing the  conclusion  to  make  sure  that  it  includes  only  the 
specific  instances  upon  which  it  is  based,  and  then  examining 
each  of  these  specific  instances  to  see  that  it  is  true  as  a  matter 
of  fact.  If  the  conclusion  includes  more  than  the  facts  war- 
rant or  if  the  alleged  facts  are  false  the  perfect  induction  is 
fallacious. 

In  searching  for  fallacies  in  an  imperfect  induction  the 
rules  which  have  already  been  pointed  out  as  governing  the 
construction  of  such  an  inductive  argument  should  be  ap- 
plied. In  order  to  make  a  systematic  search  for  fallacies  in 
arguments  involving  this  kind  of  reasoning,  the  following 
steps  should  be  taken. 

I.  The  number  of  specific  instances  relied  upon  to  support  the 
inductive  conclusion  should  he  determined. 
It  is  comparatively  easy  to  determine  the  number  of  inci- 
dents claimed  to  support  the  conclusion,  provided  they  are 


236  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

all  stated  in  the  argument.  In  such  a  case  the  searcher  for 
fallacies  merely  counts  these  incidents  and  passes  on  to  the 
next  step  in  his  investigation.  Seldom,  however,  is  the  task 
so  easy.  In  most  arguments  the  writer  or  speaker  extends 
his  conclusion  far  beyond  the  actual  facts  offered  in  its  sup- 
port. Often  the  speaker  states  that  "hundreds  of  other 
cases,"  or  "incidents  too  numerous  to  mention,"  or  "thou- 
sands of  similar  cases,"  etc.,  can  be  produced  to  show  the 
validity  of  the  induction.  The  debater  should  never  be 
overawed  by  such  sweeping  statements  or  allow  them  to 
cause  him  to  cease  his  search  for  fallacies.  He  must  be  in- 
sistent in  his  demand  that  the  number  of  incidents  upon 
which  the  conclusion  is  based  be  exactly  stated  or  at  least 
that  the  number  be  shown  as  large  enough  to  offset  the  proba- 
bility of  coincidence.  The  fallacy  of  the  induction  can  then  he 
shown  to  exist  by  pointing  out  that  the  number  of  incidents  in 
support  of  the  induction  is  not  sufficiently  great  to  warrant  its 
acceptance. 

2.  The  class  of  persons,  events,  or  things  about  which  the  induc- 

tion is  made  should  he  scrutinized  with  a  view  to  deter- 
mining whether  it  is  homogeneous. 
The  discussion  of  this  requirement  for  a  valid  imperfect 
induction  which  has  been  previously  given  will  make  plain 
the  nature  of  the  investigation  under  it.  A  fallacy  may  be 
exposed  in  such  an  argument  by  showing  that  the  class  of 
persons,  events,  or  things  about  which  the  induction  is  made  is 
not  homogeneous  in  respect  to  the  particular  about  which  the 
conclusion  is  stated. 

3.  Whether  or  not  the  specific  instances  cited  in  support  of  the 

conclusion  are  fair  examples  should  be  determined. 
It  is  usually  easier  to  detect  unfair  examples  in  an  op- 
ponent's argument  than  in  one  of  the  debater's  own  construe- 


FALLACIES  237 

tion.  The  person  who  uses  an  induction  is  almost  always 
prejudiced  in  favor  of  the  instances  which  support  it,  but  to 
the  unprejudiced  mind  the  fairness  of  a  given  example  is 
not  hard  to  determine.  It  is  therefore  important  that  the 
investigator  assume  an  unprejudiced  attitude  towards  the 
examples  offered  as  representative  of  the  class  about  which 
the  induction  is  made.  The  existence  of  a  fallacy  in  an  argu- 
ment based  upon  an  imperfect  induction  may  he  revealed  by 
showing  that  the  specific  instances  cited  in  support  of  the  conclu- 
sion are  not  fair  examples. 

4.  A  search  should  be  made  for  exceptions  to  the  rule  stated  by 

the  induction. 
One  of  the  most  effective  ways  to  overthrow  a  generahza- 
tion  is  to  present  exceptions.  Even  the  existence  of  one 
exception  will  greatly  weaken  the  effect  of  a  conclusion,  while 
several  exceptions,  clearly  estabhshed,  will  entirely  destroy 
it.  To  prove  the  existence  of  more  exceptions  to  the  rule 
than  there  are  instances  supporting  it  is  to  prove  it  entirely 
fallacious.  The  search  for  exceptions  should  be  made  by  the 
same  means  employed  in  finding  instances  to  support  the 
induction.  The  fallacy  of  an  induction  may  be  shown  by  prov- 
ing the  existence  of  exceptions  to  the  rule  which  it  states. 

5.  The  induction  should  be  examined  with  a  view  to  determining 

its  reasonableness. 
An  induction  which  appears  on  its  face  to  be  contrary  to 
usual  experience  is  not  an  eflfective  instrument  of  persuasion. 
By  showing  that  it  is  contrary  to  natural  law  or  that  no 
process  of  reasoning  other  than  induction  can  be  made  to  up- 
hold it,  the  student  may  weaken  its  force.  If  clear  proof  of 
its  validity  can  be  established  in  this  way  it  is  not  necessary 
that  other  methods  of  showing  a  fallacy  be  introduced.  The 
fallacy  of  an  induction  may  be  established  by  clear  proof  of  its 
unreasonableness. 


238  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

II.  Fallacies  of  deduction. 

A  thorough  study  of  the  chapter  on  Deductive  Argument 
has  revealed  the  fact  that  such  an  argument  in  order  to  be 
valid  must  be  constructed  according  to  certain  definite  prin- 
ciples. The  knowledge  of  these  principles  thus  acquired 
should  enable  the  student  to  detect  fallacies  in  this  form 
of  argument.  Nevertheless,  some  of  the  fallacies  to  which 
deduction  is  liable  are  so  important  and  so  easily  concealed 
that  a  separate  treatment  of  them  is  necessary.  Fallacies 
of  deduction  may  be  divided  into  two  classes,  i.  Material 
fallacies,  and  2.  Logical  fallacies. 

I.  Material  Fallacies. 

We  have  already  learned  that  the  deductive  argument  is 
seldom  found  in  the  form  of  a  syllogism  but  is  mostly  en- 
countered in  the  form  of  an  enthymeme,  which  must  be 
reduced  to  the  syllogistic  form.  The  method  of  reduction 
has  been  explained  in  the  chapter  on  Deductive  Argument 
and  exercises  in  the  use  of  that  method  have  been  given. 
It  is  therefore  assumed  that  the  student  is  so  familiar  with 
this  process  that  he  can  readily  reduce  any  argument  to  the 
syllogistic  form.  In  the  search  for  fallacies  we  may  begin  at 
this  point.  After  the  argument  has  been  reduced  to  syllogistic 
form  our  first  task  is  to  examine  the  major  and  minor  prem- 
ises for  the  purpose  of  discovering  any  material  error,  or 
error  of  fact.  In  constructing  our  own  argument  we  have 
been  cautioned  to  see  to  it  that  both  of  these  statements  in 
the  syllogism  are  true.  Now  we  are  examining  our  own 
arguments  or  our  opponents'  arguments  for  the  very  purpose 
of  finding  out  whether  they  contain  any  error.  A  sophomore 
urges  John  Pitt  to  come  out  for  the  class  football  team  by 
saying  that  all  sophomores  ought  to  be  candidates  for  places 
on  the  team.  Reduced  to  the  syllogistic  form  the  argument 
would  stand  as  follows: 


FALLACIES  239 

1.  All  sophomores  ought  to  be  candidates  for  the  class 
football  team. 

2.  John  Pitt  is  a  sophomore. 

3.  Therefore  John  Pitt  ought  to  be  a  candidate  for  the 
class  football  team. 

Upon  examining  the  major  premise  we  find  that  it  is  not 
true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  because  it  is  obvious  that  one  who 
is  not  physically  capable  of  taking  part  in  such  a  game  ought 
not  to  do  so  even  though  he  is  a  sophomore.  The  deduction 
is  therefore  fallacious.  But  suppose  the  major  premise  to  be 
sound,  the  next  step  in  the  search  for  fallacies  would  be  to 
examine  the  minor  premise  and  find  out  whether  it  is  true 
as  a  matter  of  fact.  An  examination  of  this  premise  may 
disclose  the  fact  that  John  Pitt  is  a  junior.  The  deduction 
is  therefore  fallacious,  because  the  minor  premise  is  not  true 
as  a  matter  of  fact.  A  fallacy  in  a  deductive  argument  may 
be  exposed  by  showing  that  either  the  major  premise  or  the  minor 
premise  is  not  true  as  a  matter  of  fact. 

2.  Logical  fallacies. 

We  now  come  to  the  class  of  fallacies  which  inhere  in  de- 
ductive reasoning  independent  of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
alleged  facts  contained  in  the  premises.  These  are  called 
logical  fallacies.  They  consist  of  many  forms  of  error  in 
reasoning,  but  we  shall  concern  ourselves  only  with  those 
most  likely  to  be  encountered.  These  are  four  in  number, 
(i)  The  undistributed  middle,  (2)  The  illicit  process,  (3)  Irrel- 
evancy of  premises,  or  ignoring  the  question,  and  (4)  Begging 
the  question. 

(i).  The  undistributed  middle. 

One  of  the  most  common  errors  of  deductive  argument  is 
called  the  fallacy  of  the  undistributed  middle.  It  consists 
of  a  defect  in  the  major  premise.    This  defect  is  the  failure 


240 


ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 


of  the  major  term  to  include  the  middle  term.    The  following 
syllogism  is  a  typical  illustration  01  this  error: 

1.  Some  college  men  are  successful  in  business. 

2.  Henry  Winslow  is  a  college  man. 

3.  Therefore  Henry  Winslow  is  successful  in  business. 

The  student  will  observe  that  the  major  term,  "men  who 
are  successful  in  business,"  does  not  include  the  middle 
term,  "college  men,"  but  only  includes  a  part  of  that  class 
of  men.  This  is  true  because  the  middle  term  reads  "Some 
college  men."  Therefore  it  is  evident  that  there  are  some 
college  men  who  are  not  successful  in  business  as  well  as  some 
who  are.  To  represent  this  defect  graphically  the  device  of 
circles  employed  in  discussing  the  construction  of  valid  deduc- 
tions may  again  be  used.    The  result  is  as  follows: 


It  is  thus  made  plain  that  some  college  men  are  within  the 
class  of  those  who  are  successful  in  business,  while  some  col- 
lege men  are  not  within  that  class.  Now,  all  that  we  know 
about  Henry  Winslow  is  that  he  is  a  college  man.  Therefore 
we  cannot  tell  whether  he  belongs  to  that  part  of  the  class  of 
college  men  who  are  successful  in  business,  or  to  that  part  of 
the  class  of  college  men  which  is  not  included  in  the  class  of 


FALLACIES 


241 


men  who  are  successful  in  business.    We  may  represent  the 
complete  fallacy  as  follows: 


In  order  to  eliminate  the  logical  fallacy  contained  in  the 
foregoing  syllogism  it  would  be  necessary  to  include  the 
middle  term  in  the  major  term  of  the  major  premise.    The 


relation  of  the  terms  of  the  major  premise  would  then  be 
represented  by  the  diagram  above. 


242  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

The  completed  syllogism  would  then  read  as  follows: 

1.  All  college  men  are  successful  in  business. 

2.  Henry  Winslow  is  a  college  man. 

3.  Therefore  Henry  Winslow  is  successful  in  business. 

The  student  must  not  delude  himself  with  the  false  im- 
pression that  he  has  remedied  the  defect  and  that  the  syllo- 
gism may  therefore  be  used  as  the  basis  of  a  sound  argument. 
On  the  contrary  he  must  now  treat  the  result  of  his  efforts 
as  a  new  syllogism  and  begin  the  search  for  fallacies  all  over 
again.  The  first  step  in  this  process,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  is  to  inquire  into  the  truth  of  the  facts  contained  in  the 
premises.  Let  us  first  examine  the  major  premise.  Is  it 
true  that  all  college  men  are  successful  in  business?  A  little 
investigation  and  reflection  will  prove  that  it  is  not.  There- 
fore the  argument  is  still  as  fallacious  as  it  was  in  the  begin- 
ning. We  have  merely  changed  the  logical  fallacy  into  a 
material  fallacy.  The  result  of  our  investigation  has  been 
to  disclose  the  fallacy  of  an  enthymeme  which  reads,  "Henry 
Winslow  is  successful  in  business  because  he  is  a  college  man." 

Another  form  in  which  the  fallacy  of  the  undistributed 
middle  appears  in  a  manner  less  easy  to  detect  is  shown  by 
the  following  syllogism: 

1.  All  orators  are  men  of  great  ability. 

2.  Herbert  Lang  is  a  man  of  great  ability. 

3.  Therefore  Herbert  Lang  is  an  orator. 

Each  of  the  premises  in  the  above  syllogism  may  be  per- 
fectly true  as  a  matter  of  fact,  but  it  is  obvious  that  there  is 
something  wrong  with  the  syllogism  as  a  whole.  The  nature 
of  the  defect  is  not  apparent  until  we  begin  to  apply  the  rules 
for  constructing  a  valid  syllogism.  This  reveals  the  fact  that 
instead  of  the  major  term  including  the  middle  term,  the 
middle  includes  the  major.    If  we  diagram  the  major  premise 


FALLACIES  243 

by  the  system  of  circles  previously  employed  the  following 
result  is  obtained: 


If  the  conclusion  to  be  established  had  been  that  Herbert 
Lang  is  a  man  of  great  ability  and  the  minor  premise  had 
stated  that  Herbert  Lang  was  an  orator  then  the  major 
premise  as  outlined  above  would  have  been  perfectly  valid. 
But  the  conclusion  that  Herbert  Lang  is  an  orator  does  not 
follow  from  the  fact  that  he  is  a  man  of  great  ability  and  that 
all  orators  are  men  of  great  ability.  The  only  fact  that  we 
can  draw  from  these  statements  is  that  some  men  of  great 
ability  are  orators.  Because  we  say  that  all  orators  are  men 
of  great  abihty  we  cannot  be  sure  of  the  converse,  that  is, 
that  all  men  of  great  ability  are  orators.  Only  some  of  them 
are  orators,  others  may  be  ministers,  doctors,  lawyers,  or 
business  men.  Therefore  all  that  we  can  conclude  is  that, 
''Some  men  of  great  ability  are  orators."  It  is  now  plain 
that  when  we  construct  the  completed  syllogism  from  this 
major  premise,  the  same  defect  will  exist  which  was  revealed 
in  the  preceding  illustration. 

1.  Some  men  of  great  ability  are  orators. 

2.  Herbert  Lang  is  a  man  of  great  ability. 

3.  Therefore  Herbert  Lang  is  an  orator. 


244  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

By  examining  the  facts  expressed  in  the  invalid  syllogism 
we  have  found  that  the  fallacy  consists  of  an  undistributed 
middle  term.  This  fallacy  becomes  obvious  in  some  proposi- 
tions in  which  the  conclusion  shows  the  absurdity  of  the 
reasoning  process.  If  we  could  maintain  that  Herbert  Lang 
is  an  orator  because  he  is  a  man  of  great  ability  and  all  orators 
are  men  of  great  abUity,  we  could  argue  with  equal  reason 
that  he  is  a  ground  hog  because  he  is  an  animal  and  all  ground 
hogs  are  animals. 

(2).  The  illicit  process. 

The  illicit  process  of  either  the  major  or  minor  term  in  the 
syllogism  consists  of  one  of  these  terms  appearing  in  the 
conclusion  in  a  form  essentially  different  from  that  in  which 
it  appeared  in  the  major  or  minor  premises.  In  this  fallacy 
the  major  term  which  is  in  the  afl5rmative  form  in  the  major 
premise  becomes  negative  in  the  conclusion.  The  following 
fallacious  syllogism  illustrates  this  error: 

1.  All  football  men  are  strong. 

2.  Amos  Buck  is  not  a  football  man. 

3.  Therefore  Amos  Buck  is  not  strong. 

The  fallacy  is  evident;  the  class  of  football  men  does  not 
include  all  the  strong  men.  There  are  some  men  who  are 
not  football  men  that  are  strong.  The  fact  that  Amos  Buck 
is  not  included  in  the  class  of  football  men  does  not  prove 
that  he  is  not  included  in  the  larger  class  of  strong  men.  To 
be  more  concrete  let  us  again  make  use  of  the  diagrams. 

From  the  diagram  on  page  245  it  is  seen  that  the  fact  that 
all  football  men  are  strong  and  that  Amos  Buck  is  not  a  foot- 
ball man,  does  not  prove  anything  regarding  his  strength.  He 
may  be  within  the  class  of  strong  men  or  he  may  be  outside. 
Hence  the  syllogism  is  fallacious.  Usually  the  fallacy  is  not 
so  apparent  as  in  the  above  illustration  but  by  reducing  the 


FALLACIES 


245 


Statements  to  syllogistic  form  in  the  manner  indicated  above 
the  error  becomes  apparent. 

The  minor  term  in  a  syllogism  sometimes  appears  in  the 
minor  premise  as  undistributed  or  particular  and  then  ap- 
pears in  the  conclusion  as  distributed  or  universal.  This  is 
another  form  of  the  illicit  process.  The  same  result  follows 
when  the  minor  term  becomes  either  larger  or  smaller  or  in 
any  way  different  in  the  conclusion  from  what  it  was  in  the 
minor  premise.    For  example,  a  business  man  says,  "I  will 


not  send  my  son  to  college  because  some  college  men  are 
'sports'  and  I  detest  'sports'."  This  error  in  reasoning  re- 
sults from  the  failure  to  phrase  each  term  in  the  same  form 
throughout  the  syllogism.  A  scrutiny  of  the  terms  of  the 
syllogism  will  therefore  reveal  the  presence  of  this  fallacy. 


(3).  Irrelevancy  of  the  premises,  or  ignoring  the  question. 

This  fallacy  consists  in  ignoring  the  conclusion  to  be  es- 
tablished and  arguing  toward  some  other  conclusion.  In 
logic  it  is  called  ignoratio  elenchi.  It  is  a  very  important 
fallacy,  because  no  error  is  more  common  than  that  of  wan- 
dering from  the  real  point  at  issue  and  discussing  some  related 
but  irrelevant  matter.    The  error  may  arise  from  a  deUberate 


246  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

attempt  on  the  part  of  the  speaker  to  deceive  his  hearers 
by  taking  their  attention  from  the  real  point  at  issue,  from 
a  failure  to  analyze  the  question  properly,  or  from  inability 
to  reason  correctly. 

In  discussing  this  fallacy  the  first  step  is  to  analyze  the 
argument  in  its  relation  to  the  point  to  be  proved.  It  should 
be  reduced  to  the  syllogistic  form,  and  the  irrelevancy  be- 
tween the  premises  and  the  conclusion  should  be  made  plain. 
After  the  premises  are  found  it  becomes  an  easy  task  to  deter- 
mine whether  they  estabUsh  the  right  conclusion  or  some 
other  conclusion. 

There  are  certain  ways  in  which  the  question  may  be  ig- 
nored that  are  so  common  that  they  demand  special  attention. 
Of  these  the  most  important  are  the  following: 

A.  The  appeal  to  passion,  prejudice,  or  humor. 

Very  often  the  speaker,  instead  of  refuting  the  arguments 
of  his  opponent,  will  attempt  to  cast  ridicule  upon  them  and 
thus  by  humorous  treatment  divert  attention  from  the  real 
point  at  issue.  Very  often  the  appeal  is  made  to  the  passion 
or  prejudice  of  the  persons  addressed  instead  of  to  their 
reason. 

B.  The  personal  attack  upon  an  opponent. 

A  favorite  method  of  the  old  time  lawyer  was  to  "bullyrag" 
his  opponent  in  a  law  suit  and  thus  merge  the  case  at  issue 
into  a  personal  conflict  with  the  opposing  counsel.  While 
this  practice  has  long  ago  disappeared  from  the  court  room 
it  is  very  often  encountered  in  other  places.  A  speaker  who 
has  a  weak  case  will  sometimes  attack  the  personal  character 
of  his  opponent  and  thus  seek  to  change  the  issue  from  a 
debate  on  the  proposition  to  a  wrangle  over  the  personal 
virtues  of  the  participants. 

C.  The  personal  attack  upon  the  person  or  persons  concerned 
in  the  controversy. 

We  argue  beside  the  point  when  we  infer  from  the  moral 


FALLACIES  247 

character,  position,  or  conduct  of  an  individual,  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  a  particular  proposition.  If  the  question  is  whether 
or  not  John  Jones  killed  John  Smith,  we  make  no  progress 
by  showing  that  John  Jones  cheated  John  Doe  out  of  his 
farm.  If  we  are  told  that  a  certain  person  advocates  prohi- 
bition it  is  no  refutation  of  his  arguments  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  he  is  a  drunkard.  The  validity  of  a  drunkard's 
arguments  in  favor  of  prohibition  are  not  affected  by  his  con- 
duct, although  their  influence  upon  other  persons  would 
doubtless  be  greatly  affected  by  it.  We  always  argue  beside 
the  point  when  we  attempt  to  defend  or  condemn  a  principle 
by  praising  or  condemning  the  person  who  advocates  it. 
Neither  can  we  establish  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  an  accused 
person  by  praising  or  condemning  traits  of  his  character 
which  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  charges  against  him. 

D.  The  appeal  to  customs  and  tradition. 

The  popular  appeal  to  "let  well  enough  alone,"  "what  has 
been  should  be,"  and  other  conservative  arguments  of  this 
class  entirely  ignore  the  question  at  issue.  If  the  world  had 
followed  these  precepts  we  should  be  no  farther  advanced 
today  than  at  the  beginning  of  time.  To  follow  them  now 
would  mean  that  all  progress  must  cease.  A  hundred  years 
ago  no  argument  could  have  convinced  the  average  individual 
that  man  would  be  able  to  travel  a  mile  a  minute  or  that  one 
man  could  hear  another  talk  at  a  distance  of  one  thousand 
miles,  or  that  a  machine  could  be  made  which  would  talk. 
Twenty  years  ago  few  people  could  have  been  convinced  that 
one  could  see  through  solid  matter  or  that  a  man  could  fly, 
or  that  a  wireless  telegraph  was  a  possibility.  Nevertheless 
all  of  these  seemingty  impossible  things  have  come  to  pass. 
Similar  things  are  constantly  happening  in  the  less  material 
world  of  education,  politics,  and  religion.  Therefore  small 
weight  attaches  to  the  argument  which  relies  solely  upon  an 
appeal  to  custom  and  tradition. 


248  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

E.  Shifting  ground. 

This  fallacy  usually  arises  from  using  a  word  in  a  double 
capacity.  For  instance,  "Every  American  citizen  should  be 
democratic  in  his  conduct;  therefore  he  should  vote  the 
Democratic  ticket,"  is  an  example  of  this  fallacy.  Here  the 
term  democratic  is  used  in  more  than  one  sense.  It  is  first 
used  to  indicate  an  attitude  of  kindly  sympathy  towards 
one's  fellow  men ;  then  it  is  used  to  designate  a  political  party. 
Likewise  we  might  argue  in  an  equally  fallacious  manner  that 
because  this  country  is  a  republic,  every  man  should  vote  the 
Republican  ticket.  The  cause  of  this  fallacy  is  usually  a 
failure  on  the  part  of  the  arguer  to  define  exactly  his  own 
position  and  to  state  the  meaning  of  vital  words  used  in  the 
proposition.  An  unscrupulous  debater  will  take  advantage 
of  this  fallacy  as  soon  as  he  is  cornered  by  shifting  to  a  dif- 
ferent meaning  of  the  words  employed.  Whenever  a  debater 
begins  to  prove  one  proposition  and  ends  by  upholding  an- 
other proposition  he  has  shifted  ground.  This  fallacy  is 
usually  so  concealed  in  a  maze  of  words  that  its  detection  is 
difficult. 

F.  Refuting  an  argument  which  has  not  been  advanced. 

This  form  of  ignoring  the  question  may  arise  from  a  de- 
liberate attempt  to  misrepresent  the  opposition  or  from  an 
honest  mistake  as  to  just  what  argument  has  been  advanced. 
In  either  case  it  ignores  the  question  at  issue  and  is  a  useless 
expenditure  of  time  and  effort.  Sometimes  a  debater  cannot 
refute  the  arguments  advanced  by  his  opponents  and  he 
therefore  seeks  to  occupy  his  time  by  arguing  against  conten- 
tions which  he  thought  would  be  advanced  but  which  in 
reality  have  not  been  mentioned.  It  is  far  better  not  to  argue 
at  all  than  to  ignore  the  real  points  at  issue  in  this  manner. 

G.  Arguing  on  a  related  proposition. 

This  is  a  very  common  way  of  ignoring  the  question.  For 
example,  in  support  of  prohibition,  a  debater  often  proves 


FALLACIES  249 

that  temperance  is  a  benefit  to  the  community.  The  real 
question  is  whether  prohibition  is  advisable  as  a  means  of 
dealing  with  the  liquor  traffic.  The  question  as  to  whether 
temperance  benefits  the  community  is  only  related.  There- 
fore to  argue  in  support  of  the  related  question  is  to  ignore 
the  real  one.  In  a  debate  on  the  proposition  "Resolved,  that 
the  compulsory  arbitration  of  strikes  is  practicable  in  the 
United  States"  the  affirmative  devoted  its  efforts  to  proving 
that  the  system  would  be  of  great  advantage  to  the  country 
and  that  it  had  worked  well  in  New  Zealand.  The  question, 
whether  compulsory  arbitration  is  practicable  in  the  United 
States,  was  entirely  ignored  by  its  advocates  arguing  in 
support  of  two  related  propositions  which  might  be  stated 
as  follows:  "Resolved,  that  the  compulsory  arbitration  of 
strikes  would  be  of  great  advantage  to  the  United  States," 
and  "Resolved,  that  compulsory  arbitration  of  strikes  has 
worked  well  in  New  Zealand."  The  real  question  at  issue 
was  entirely  ignored. 

(4).  Begging  the  question. 

To  beg  the  question  is  to  assume  its  truth  or  falsity  with- 
out proof.  This  does  not  mean  a  direct  assumption  of  truth 
or  falsity  but  an  indirect  assumption  reached  in  a  circuitous 
manner  by  an  appearance  of  logical  reasoning.  In  logic  this 
error  is  called  petitio  principi.  It  may  appear  in  many  dif- 
ferent forms  but  the  following  are  the  most  frequently  en- 
countered: 

A.  Arguing  in  a  circle. 

This  error  involves  more  than  one  syllogism.  It  begins  by 
assuming  the  truth  of  a  premise,  next  upon  this  premise  a 
conclusion  is  built  and  then  finally  this  very  conclusion  is 
used  in  an  attempt  to  prove  the  premise  with  which  the 
syllogism  was  begun.  For  example,  a  student  is  urged  to 
take  the  course  in  corporation  law  in  the  Harvard  Law  School 


250  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

because  it  is  the  best  in  the  country.  When  the  student 
inquires  why  it  is  the  best  in  the  country  he  is  told  that  it  is 
the  best  because  it  is  given  in  the  Harvard  Law  School.  In 
other  words  no  reason  is  given  but  the  statement  stripped  of 
its  semblance  of  reasoning  is  merely  that  the  Harvard  Law 
School  is  the  best  because  it  is  the  best. 

An  excellent  example  showing  the  refutation  of  a  circular 
argument  is  found  in  Percival  and  Jelliffe's  Specimens  of 
Exposition  and  Argument.  It  is  taken  from  the  argument 
of  Felix  Adler  against  the  evils  of  child  labor  in  the  United 
States, 

"There  is  one  other  argument  so  un-American  and  so 
inhuman  that  I  am  almost  ashamed  to  quote  it,  and  yet  it 
has  been  used,  and  I  fear  is  secretly  in  the  minds  of  some 
who  would  not  openly  stand  for  it.  A  manufacturer  standing 
near  the  furnace  of  a  glasshouse  and  pointing  to  a  procession 
of  young  Slav  boys  who  w'ere  carrying  the  glass  on  trays, 
remarked  'Look  at  their  faces,  and  you  will  see  that  it  is 
idle  to  take  them  from  the  glasshouse  in  order  to  give  them 
an  education;  they  are  what  they  are,  and  will  always  remain 
what  they  are.'  He  meant  that  there  are  some  human 
beings — and  these  Slavs  of  the  number — who  are  mentally 
irredeemable,  so  fast  asleep  intellectually  that  they  cannot 
be  awakened;  designed  by  nature,  therefore,  to  be  hewers  of 
wood  and  drawers  of  water.  This  cruel  and  wicked  thing  was 
said  of  Slavs;  it  is  the  same  thing  which  has  been  said  from 
time  immemorial  by  the  slave  owners  of  their  slaves.  First 
they  degrade  human  beings  by  denying  them  opportunity 
to  develop  their  better  nature;  no  schools,  no  teaching,  no 
freedom,  no  outlook;  and  then,  as  if  in  mockery,  they  point 
to  the  degraded  condition  of  their  victims  as  a  reason  why 
they  should  never  be  allowed  to  escape  from  it." 

B.  Directly  assuming  the  point  at  issue. 

In  directly  assuming  the  truth  of  the  point  at  issue  much 


FALLACIES  251 

language  is  employed  which  tends  to  conceal  the  lack  of  real 
proof.  Stripped  of  their  wealth  of  expression  such  so-called 
arguments  appear  as  bare  unsupported  assertions.  The  fol- 
lowing is  a  good  example  of  this  fallacy:  "Up  to  the  time 
when  the  crime  was  committed,  the  character  of  the  prisoner 
was  above  reproach,  for  his  conduct  was  always  characterized 
by  honest  respect  for  law  and  order." 

Often  a  single  word  may  directly  assume  the  truth  or  fal- 
sity of  the  proposition  under  discussion.  In  opposing  the 
proposition  "Resolved,  that  the  boycott  is  a  proper  policy 
for  organized  labor,"  the  first  speaker  began  by  saying,  "It 
is  our  purpose  to  prove  that  the  wicked  and  pernicious  system 
of  boycotting  is  not  a  proper  policy  for  organized  labor." 
This  statement  begged  the  whole  proposition  by  assuming 
at  the  outset  that  boycotting  is  wicked  and  pernicious.  A 
subsequent  speaker  committed  the  same  fallacy  by  saying, 
"We  contend  that  there  are  ways  by  which  organized  labor 
can  accompHsh  its  purpose  that  are — unlike  the  boycott — 
legitimate  and  proper."  In  some  cases  such  question-begging 
words  as  those  employed  above  are  used  in  defining  the  terms 
of  the  proposition.  This  manner  of  defining  terms  begs  the 
question  as  effectively  and  directly  as  any  of  the  other  falla- 
cious practices  discussed  under  this  heading. 

C.  Indirectly  assuming  the  point  at  issue. 

One  of  the  most  common  ways  of  begging  the  question  is 
to  assume  the  truth  of  a  broad  general  proposition  which 
includes  the  one  under  discussion.  This  does  not  directly 
assume  the  truth  of  the  proposition  but  does  it  indirectly. 
For  instance,  a  student  declared  that  "Our  football  team  will 
win  the  championship,  because  the  captain  of  the  team  says 
we  cannot  lose  it."  This  begs  the  point  at  issue,  namely — 
whether  our  team  will  win  the  championship,  by  assuming 
the  truth  of  a  broader  proposition,  namely — that  whatever 
the  captain  of  the  team  says  is  true. 


252  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

The  same  result  follows  the  assumption  of  particular  truths 
which  the  proposition  involves.  In  supporting  the  proposi- 
tion, "Resolved,  that  the  state  should  prescribe  uniform 
text-books  for  the  public  schools"  a  student  attempted  to 
prove  that  pubhc  instruction  should  be  uniform  throughout 
the  state.  He  thus  assumed  that  uniform  text-books  would 
secure  uniform  public  instruction  throughout  the  state.  This 
was  a  particular  proposition  involved  in  the  main  proposition, 
and  it  was  the  duty  of  the  debater  to  show  that  uniform  text- 
books would  bring  about  uniform  pubhc  instruction. 

III.  Fallacies  of  causal  relation. 

We  have  already  considered  the  importance  of  causal 
relation  in  argumentation.  A  relation  clearly  established 
between  a  cause  and  an  effect  affords  a  substantial  basis  for 
valid  reasoning.  The  failure  to  estabUsh  such  relation  results 
in  error.  Of  course  the  causal  relation  may  exist  although 
undiscovered.  Nevertheless,  the  failure  to  show  such  rela- 
tion should  always  be  considered  as  a  warning  to  look  out 
for  fallacies. 

I.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause. 

The  argument  from  effect  to  cause  may  be  shown  to  con- 
tain a  fallacy  by  proving  any  one  of  the  following  contentions: 

1.  That  the  alleged  cause  was  not  sufficient  to  produce 
the  effect. 

2.  That  an  independent  cause  intervened  between  the 
alleged  cause  and  the  effect. 

3.  That  the  alleged  cause  was  prevented  from  operating. 

In  arguing  from  a  known  effect  to  an  unknown  cause  cer- 
tain fallacies  occur  with  such  frequency  that  we  must  give 
them  special  attention.  Of  these  common  errors  the  following 
are  the  most  important: 


FALLACIES  253 

(i)  Mistaking  coincidence  for  cause. 

Most  superstitions  are  due  to  this  fallacy  of  mistaking 
coincidence  for  cause.  A  black  cat  crosses  our  path  as  we 
are  starting  out  on  a  journey.  If  some  misfortune  overtakes 
us  before  our  return  our  minds  immediately  revert  to  the  old 
superstition  that  if  a  black  cat  crosses  our  path  we  must 
turn  back  and  make  a  fresh  start  if  we  wish  to  ward  off  dis- 
aster. The  black  cat  is  regarded  by  the  superstitious  as  the 
cause  of  the  disaster.  Obviously  there  is  no  causal  relation 
between  the  appearance  of  the  black  cat  and  the  occurrence 
of  the  disaster.  It  is  merely  a  coincidence.  If  we  regard  it 
in  any  other  light  we  are  mistaking  coincidence  for  cause. 

Political  campaign  oratory  abounds  in  this  kind  of  fallacy. 
One  political  party  comes  into  power  and  a  period  of  indus- 
trial prosperity  follows.  The  party  leaders  point  to  their 
administration  as  the  cause  of  the  prosperity.  On  the  other 
hand  if  a  period  of  depression  follows  the  election,  the  op- 
ponents of  the  successful  party  point  to  it  as  the  cause  of 
the  disaster.  Seldom  in  such  cases  is  any  real  causal  relation 
established.    It  is  more  often  merely  coincidence. 

No  fallacy  is  more  inexcusable  than  that  which  asserts  a 
mere  prior  occurrence  as  a  cause.  Because  it  rained  last 
Sunday  and  today  I  lose  my  pocketbook  is  no  reason  why 
I  should  maintain  that  last  Sunday's  rain  was  the  cause  of 
my  loss.  Yet  many  arguments  are  advanced  based  upon  a 
lack  of  causal  relation  as  evident  as  that  of  the  above  coinci- 
dence. In  an  inter-class  debate  one  of  the  speakers  main- 
tained that  the  large  number  of  Chinese  in  a  certain  city  was 
the  cause  of  the  greater  amount  of  crime  which  existed  in 
that  city  as  compared  with  other  cities  of  the  same  size.  No 
causal  relation  was  established,  but  the  mere  fact  of  the 
presence  of  the  Chinese  was  set  forth  as  proof  that  the  Chinese 
were  responsible  for  the  crime.  One  of  the  critics  of  the 
debate  pointed  out  that  it  was  just  as  reasonable  to  suppose 


254  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

that  the  unusually  cold  weather  of  the  winter  just  passed 
was  caused  by  the  large  number  of  Congregationahsts  in 
the  state. 

Even  when  two  events  are  repeatedly  associated  so  far  as 
time  is  concerned  we  should  not  regard  the  repetition  as  proof 
of  the  causal  relation  but  only  as  an  indication  that  a  causal 
relation  probably  exists.  We  should  not  arrive  at  any  def- 
inite conclusion  until  the  existence  of  the  causal  relation 
has  been  finally  established. 

(2).  Mistaking  an  effect  for  a  cause. 

The  fallacy  of  mistaking  an  effect  for  a  cause  consists  in 
pointing  to  one  effect  as  the  cause  of  another  effect  when  in 
reality  both  effects  are  the  result  of  one  cause.  For  example, 
a  recent  writer  attributes  the  anarchistic  tendency  of  the 
masses  of  Russia  to  the  arrogance  of  the  soldiery  in  that 
country.  This  reasoning  is  criticised  on  the  ground  that 
both  the  anarchistic  tendencies  of  the  masses  and  the  arro- 
gance of  the  soldiery  are  effects  of  the  same  cause,  viz. — the 
despotic  government  of  Russia. 

(3).  Mistaking  a  subsequent  cause  for  a  real  cause. 

This  fallacy  arises  when  an  effect  is  observed  and  in  the 
search  for  the  cause  we  accept  something  wlaich  in  reality 
happened  after  the  effect  was  observed.  A  striking  example 
of  this  fallacy  occurred  in  a  recent  municipal  election.  The 
increased  cost  of  city  government  was  charged  to  the  present 
mayor.  His  opponents  pointed  to  him  as  the  cause  of  this 
increase  in  the  city's  expenses.  The  mayor's  friends  revealed 
the  fallacy  by  showing  that  the  expense  had  really  been 
incurred  under  the  former  mayor.  The  acts  of  the  present 
mayor  could  not  have  been  the  cause  of  the  increased  expense 
because  that  expense  had  been  incurred  before  he  went  into 
office.  Therefore  those  who  made  the  unjust  charge  had 
committed  the  fallacy  of  mistaking  a  subsequent  cause  for 
the  real  cause. 


FALLACIES  255 

(4).  Mistaking  an  insufficient  cause  for  a  sufficient  cause. 

This  fallacy  differs  from  those  previously  discussed  in  that 
there  exists  some  causal  relation  between  the  effect  and  the 
alleged  cause.  The  error  consists  of  a  failure  to  recognize 
the  insufficiency  of  the  cause  to  produce  the  effect  without 
the  help  of  some  other  cause. 

In  a  discussion  of  the  proposition,  "Resolved,  that  depart- 
ment stores  have  proved  a  benefit  to  municipal  communi- 
ties," one  speaker  argued  that  such  stores  were  the  cause 
of  the  low  price  at  which  small  necessities  such  as  hardware 
and  dry-goods  novelties  could  be  purchased  by  the  con- 
simier.  The  next  speaker  exposed  the  fallacy  of  this  argument 
by  admitting  that  department  stores  had  been  a  factor  in 
lowering  the  cost  of  such  commodities,  but  that  this  could 
not  have  been  done  except  for  the  assistance  of  another  and 
more  powerful  cause,  viz., — the  invention  of  machinery  by 
which  such  articles  could  be  manufactured  in  enormous 
quantities. 

2.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  cause  to  effect. 

Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  cause  to  effect  may  be  ex- 
posed by  showing 

1.  That  the  observed  cause  is  insufficient  to  produce  the 
alleged  effect. 

2.  That  past  experience  shows  that  the  alleged  effect  does 
not  always  follow  the  observed  cause. 

3.  That  an  independent  force  has  intervened  to  prevent  the 
observed  cause  from  operating. 

4.  That  the  conclusion  established  by  the  argument  is 
overthrown  by  positive  evidence. 

It  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  argument  from  cause  to 
effect  is  subject  to  errors  similar  to  those  discussed  in  con- 
nection with  fallacies  of  the  argument  from  effect  to  cause. 


256  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

In  his  desire  to  predict  the  course  of  future  events  man  is 
led  to  ignore  the  complex  nature  of  human  affairs.  A  certain 
individual  believes  that  if  he  puts  all  his  money  into  a  business 
and  then  gives  all  his  attention  to  its  management  that  that 
is  a  sufficient  cause  for  success.  Nevertheless,  so  much  de- 
pends upon  the  nature  of  the  man  and  of  the  business  that 
it  is  extremely  difficult  to  foretell  the  effect.  The  principle 
underlying  this  situation  is  common  to  practically  every 
argument  from  cause  to  effect.  Unless  the  fallacy  is  obvious 
it  requires  a  broad  and  penetrating  intellect  to  fathom  it. 

3.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  effect  to  effect. 

The  fallacies  of  the  argument  from  effect  to  effect  are  dis- 
covered by  resolving  it  into  the  argument  from  effect  to 
cause  and  from  cause  to  effect,  of  which  it  is  composed,  and 
examining  the  validity  of  each  of  these  processes. 

IV.  Fallacies  of  the  argument  from  analogy. 

The  chapter  on  Argument  from  Analogy  treated  of  the 
requirements  for  validity  to  which  such  an  argument  must 
conform.  We  may  expose  the  fallacy  of  an  argument  from 
analogy  by  showing — 

1.  That  the  two  factors  in  the  analogy  are  not  alike  in  all 
the  particulars  affecting  the  conclusion. 

2.  That  the  alleged  facts  upon  which  the  analogy  is  based 
are  not  true. 

3.  That  the  conclusion  established  by  analogy  is  disproved 
by  positive  evidence. 

No  test  of  an  analogy  is  absolute.  Its  very  nature  makes  it 
more  susceptible  to  fallacy  than  are  the  other  forms  of  argu- 
ment. At  its  best  it  creates  only  a  high  degree  of  probability. 
As  already  stated,  its  chief  use  is  to  give  clearness  and  force 
to  persuasive  writing  and  speaking.     In  the  search  for  fal- 


FALLACIES  257 

lacies,  here  as  well  as  elsewhere,  the  best  guarantee  of  success 
is  an  unprejudiced  mind  equipped  with  a  thorough  working 
knowledge  of  all  the  argumentative  processes  of  reasoning 
and  of  the  numerous  fallacies  to  which  they  are  subject. 

EXERCISES   IN  FALLACY 

I.  Point  out  clearly  the  kind  of  fallacies,  if  any,  involved  in  the 
following  arguments. 

1.  The  only  people  excluded  from  the  privilege  of  voting  are 

children,  idiots,  foreigners,  convicts,  and  women.  How 
much  longer  will  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth  per- 
mit their  women  to  be  classed  with  the  incompetent 
and  the  criminal  classes  of  society? 

2.  Political  parties  are  a  necessity  to  free  institutions.    The 

United  States  is  the  oldest  democracy  on  earth  and  in 
it  political  parties  have  always  ruled. 

3.  The  election    of   a    Republican  president  in    1896  was 

followed  by  a  period  of  prosperity  unrivalled  in  our 
history.  Who  can  doubt  that  had  a  Democratic  presi- 
dent been  elected  it  would  have  worked  the  beginning 
of  a  sure  decline  of  our  industrial  supremacy? 

4.  The  rapid  increase  in  wages  for  the  past  twenty  years 

shows  the  superior  advantage  gained  by  the  organization 
of  the  working  men. 

5.  Is  not  the  Spanish-American  war  proof  of  the  fact  that  the 

government  can  meet  its  expenditures  in  time  of  great 
national  emergencies  without  resorting  to  the  income 
tax? 

6.  England,  France,  and  Germany  are  the  great  powers  of 

Europe.  Both  England  and  Germany  have  signified 
their  willingness  to  sign  this  treaty.  We  are  therefore 
certain  that  the  great  powers  of  Europe  will  become 
parties  to  this  treaty  provided  we  give  them  the  op- 
portunity. 

7.  Soon  after  the  great  flood  the  city  of  Galveston  was  grap- 

pling with  serious  municipal  problems.  By  adopting 
the  commission  form  of  city  government  all  these  diffi- 
culties were  solved.  Therefore  all  American  cities,  op- 
pressed by  governmental  difficulties,  may  secure  prompt 


25 S  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

relief  by  adopting  this  plan  of  municipal  administra- 
tion. 

8.  (i)  Some  Italians  are  good  musicians. 

(2)  This  man  is  an  Italian. 

(3)  Therefore  this  man  is  a  good  musician. 

9.  (i)  All  college  students  are  interested  in  athletics. 

(2)  Ira  Simpson  is  not  a  college  student. 

(3)  Therefore  Ira  Simpson  is  not  interested  in  athletics. 

10.  My  opponent  must  remember  that  the  finger  of  suspicion 

has  pointed  to  him  as  the  one  who  willfully  misrepre- 
sented that  great  mine  disaster.  Does  he  dare  to  assert 
that  he  is  now  telling  the  truth? 

11.  The  capitalistic  class  has  always  oppressed  the  working 

man.  It  has  ground  into  the  dust  the  man  who  toils 
for  his  living.  It  has  enjoyed  its  ill-gotten  wealth  by 
living  in  luxury  while  the  laboring  man  has  earned  his 
bread  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow.  Now,  my  fellow  work- 
men, shall  we  cast  our  vote  for  one  of  the  most  vicious 
members  of  this  class? 

12.  Never  in  its  history  has  the  town  of  Grogan  stooped  to 

borrow  money  for  public  improvements.  No  one  will 
dare  maintain  that  this  time  honored  custom,  founded 
upon  reason  and  common  sense,  should  now  be  broken. 

13.  Brown  County  is  overwhelmingly  RepubUcan  in  politics; 

it  is  therefore  quite  probable  that  your  cousin  who  lives 
in  that  county  is  a  Republican. 

14.  The  very  foundation  of  this  great  republic  is  the  idea  of 

democracy.  Why,  then,  should  not  every  right  minded 
citizen  recognize  his  duty  to  support  the  Democratic 
party  in  the  coming  election? 

15.  This  climate  is  very  healthful,  for  if  it  were  not  healthful 

the  people  who  live  here  would  not  be  free  from  disease. 

16.  There  must  be  a  substantial  reason  back  of  the  opinion 

that  the  tariff  should  be  lowered,  for  the  prevalence  of 
this  opinion  throughout  the  country  shows  that  it  has  a 
sound  foundation. 

17.  The  inhuman  method  of  killing  murderers  by  electrocu- 

tion should  be  abolished. 

18.  It  is  evident  that  the  recommendations  of  the  Simplified 

SpeUing  Board  should  be  adopted  because  one  of  the 


FALLACIES  259 

members  of  that  board  is  the  most  eminent  authority 
on  the  English  Language  in  this  country. 

19.  The  price  of  wheat  is  bound  to  increase  rapidly  within  the 

next  few  months  because  the  recent  flood  of  the  Arkansas 
River  has  destroyed  many  hundred  acres  of  this  crop. 

20.  James  was  quite  sure  that  something  disagreeable  would 

occur  because  only  last  night  he  saw  the  new  moon  over 
his  left  shoulder. 

21.  Since  this  tax  has  worked  well  in  England  there  can  be 

no  doubt  of  its  practicabiUty  if  it  is  adopted  in  the  United 
States. 

II.  Each  student  should  write  out  and  bring  to  the  class  at  least 
one  fallacy  which  he  has  found  in  the  conversation  of  his  fellow- 
students. 

III.  Whenever  possible  use  diagrams  to  show  the  fallacies  in  the 
specimens  under  I. 


CHAPTER  VI 

REFUTATION 

In  discussing  the  Practice  of  Argumentation  and  Debate 
we  have  considered  the  importance  of  refutation  in  both  the 
main  argument  and  in  rebuttal.  We  have  seen  that  refuta- 
tion must  be  introduced  into  the  main  arguments  whenever 
the  prominence  of  opposing  arguments  makes  it  necessary. 
We  have  seen  that  rebuttal  consists  largely  of  refutation. 
In  fact,  rebuttal  and  refutation  are  used  by  some  writers  as 
synonymous  terms.  However,  in  the  chapter  on  rebuttal  a 
distinction  was  made  by  which  that  term  was  used  to  indicate 
the  practical  work  of  defending  an  argument  and  attacking 
an  opponent.  In  this  chapter  on  Refutation  we  shall  con- 
sider the  theory  of  the  various  methods  employed  in  attack- 
ing an  opponent's  argument. 

Refutation  is  entirely  destructive  as  distinguished  from 
constructive  argument.  While  the  work  of  rebuttal  includes 
both  a  defense  of  one's  own  argument  and  an  attack  upon 
that  of  an  opponent,  refutation  consists  of  weakening  or 
destroying  the  arguments  of  the  opposition.  From  the 
destructive  nature  of  refutation  it  is  plain  that  it  must  be 
adapted  to  the  argument  against  which  it  is  directed.  This 
involves  keen  powers  of  analysis  and  adaptation,  an  exact 
knowledge  of  the  theory  and  practice  of  argumentation,  and 
a  thorough  insight  into  both  sides  of  the  proposition  under 
discussion.  The  first  essential  in  refutation  is  that  the  writer 
or  speaker  make  perfectly  plain  the  exact  argument  that 
he  is  refuting.  He  must  then  show  just  how  the  refutation 
which  he  is  making  bears  upon  that  argument.    Finally  he 

260 


REFUTATION  26t 

must  show  plainly  that  his  refutation  has  weakened  or  de- 
stroyed the  argument  against  which  it  was  directed.  These 
three  steps  in  refutation  must  be  indicated  plainly. 

In  refutation  it  is  proper  to  estabhsh  a  contrary  proposi- 
tion or  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  such  a  contrary  proposition 
has  been  estabUshed.  The  actual  destructive  work  may 
be  accomplished  in  any  legitimate  manner.  Of  the  methods 
employed  in  refutation  the  following  are  the  most  im- 
portant. 

I.  Revealing  a  fallacy. 

The  chapter  on  fallacies  has  pointed  out  the  argumentative 
defects  of  reasoning  most  frequently  encountered.  The 
student  must  not  assume  that  these  errors  will  always  occur 
in  the  exact  form  in  which  they  have  been  treated  in  any 
text-book.  They  are  sure  to  appear  in  many  and  varied 
guises.  To  identify  and  expose  them  requires  the  keenest 
quahties  of  mind.  Each  student  should  pride  himself  on  his 
abihty  to  detect  a  fallacy  quickly  and  should  look  back  with 
humiliation  upon  any  occurrence  when  he  has  allowed  a  fal- 
lacious argument  to  pass  by  unchallenged. 

Familiarity  with  the  valid  forms  of  logical  reasoning  and 
with  the  errors  to  which  they  are  subject  are  prerequisites 
to  success.  It  is  not  sufloicient  that  the  student  have  a  vague 
feeling  that  there  is  something  wrong  with  an  argument; 
he  must  be  able  to  locate  the  defect  exactly  and  to  point  it 
out  to  others  in  such  a  way  that  they  will  see  it.  Vagueness 
and  ambiguity  are  the  very  substance  of  fallacies.  Some- 
times the  student  must  use  his  knowledge  of  constructive 
logic  to  build  up  a  parallel  argument  in  the  way  it  ought  to 
stand  and  show  more  plainly  by  means  of  contrast  the  defects 
of  the  unsound  argument.  In  such  cases  it  often  happens 
that  the  evidence  points  in  an  opposite  direction  from  that 
which  is  needed  to  support  a  valid  argument.    All  of  these 


262  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

devices  should  be  utilized  in  making  plain  the  existence  oi 
fallacies. 

II.  Reductio  ad  absurdum. 

This  method  of  refutation  adopts  for  the  time  being  the 
argument  of  an  opponent  and  then  by  carrying  out  that 
argument  to  its  logical  conclusion  shows  that  it  is  absurd. 
For  example,  Beecher  answered  those  who  favored  the  South, 
during  the  late  Civil  War,  because  they  were  "the  weaker 
party,"  by  reducing  their  argument  to  an  absurdity.  He 
said, 

"Nothing  could  be  more  generous  than  your  doctrine  that 
you  stand  for  the  '  weaker '  party  in  a  controversy,  w^hen  that 
weak  party  stands  for  its  own  legitimate  rights  against  im- 
perious pride  and  power.  But  who  ever  sympathized  with  a 
weak  thief,  because  three  constables  had  got  hold  of  him? 
And  yet  the  one  thief  in  three  policemen's  hands  is  the  weaker 
party.    I  suppose  you  would  sympathize  with  him." 

The  following  quotation  from  Laycock  and  Scales'  Argu- 
mentation and  Debate  still  further  illustrates  this  method  of 
refutation. 

"This  method  is  effective  because  of  its  simplicity  and 
directness.  It  also  has  in  it  an  element  of  ridicule  that  is 
persuasive  against  an  opponent.  William  Ellery  Channing, 
in  a  reply  to  Henry  Clay  on  the  slavery  question,  used  this 
method  as  follows: — 

But  this  property,  we  are  told,  is  not  to  be  questioned 
on  account  of  its  long  duration.  "Two  hundred  years  have 
sanctioned  and  sanctified  negro  slaves  as  property."  Nothing 
but  respect  for  the  speaker  could  repress  criticism  on  this 
unhappy  phraseology.  We  will  trust  it  escaped  him  without 
thought.  But  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  argument  from 
duration;  how  obvious  the  reply!  Is  injustice  changed  into 
justice  by  the  practice  of  ages?    Is  my  victim  made  a  right- 


REFUTATION  263 

eous  prey  because  I  have  bowed  him  to  the  earth  till  he  cannot 
rise?  For  more  than  two  hundred  years  heretics  were  burned, 
and  not  by  mobs,  not  by  lynch  law,  but  by  the  decrees  of 
councils,  at  the  instigation  of  theologians,  and  with  the  sanc- 
tion of  the  laws  and  religions  of  nations;  and  was  this  a  reason 
for  keeping  up  the  fires,  that  they  had  burned  two  hundred 
years?  In  the  eastern  world,  successive  despots,  not  for  two 
hundred  years,  but  for  twice  two  thousand,  have  claimed  the 
right  of  life  and  death  over  milhons,  and  with  no  law  but 
their  own  will,  have  beheaded,  bowstrung,  starved,  tortured 
unhappy  men  without  number  who  have  incurred  their 
wrath;  and  does  the  lapse  of  so  many  centuries  sanctify 
murder  and  ferocious  power? ' 

"  Again : — '  But  the  great  argument  remains.  It  is  said  that 
this  property  must  not  be  questioned,  because  it  is  estab- 
lished by  law.  "  That  is  property  which  the  law  declares  to  be 
property."  Thus  human  law  is  made  supreme,  decisive,  in  a 
question  of  morals.  Thus  the  idea  of  an  eternal,  immutable 
justice  is  set  at  naught.  Thus  the  great  rule  of  human  life 
is  made  to  be  the  ordinance  of  interested  men.  But  there  is 
a  higher  tribunal,  a  throne  of  equal  justice,  immovable  by  the 
conspiracy  of  all  human  legislatures.  "That  is  property  which 
the  law  declares  to  be  property."  Then  the  laws  have  only 
to  declare  you,  or  me,  or  Mr.  Clay,  to  be  property,  and  we 
become  chattels  and  are  bound  to  bear  the  yoke!  Does  not 
even  man's  moral  nature  repel  this  doctrine  too  intuitively 
to  leave  time  or  need  for  argument? ' " 

III.  The  dilemma. 

The  dilemma  is  one  of  the  most  conclusive  forms  of  refuta- 
tion. It  consists  in  forcing  upon  an  opponent  a  choice  be- 
tween two  possible  solutions  to  the  question  under  discussion, 
and  then  showing  that  both  conclusions  are  unsound.  These 
two  conclusions  are  called  the  "horns  of  the  dilemma."    It 


264  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

matters  not  which  of  the  "horns"  an  opponent  selects;  the 
result  is  disastrous.  For  example,  Lincoln  used  the  dilemma 
against  those  who  charged  that  the  Republicans  stirred  up 
insurrection  among  the  slaves  and  pointed  to  John  Brown  and 
his  men  as  a  specific  example  showing  the  truth  of  that 
charge.  Lincoln  said,  "John  Brown  was  no  Republican; 
and  you  have  failed  to  implicate  a  single  Republican  in  his 
Harper's  Ferry  enterprise.  If  any  member  of  our  party  is 
guilty  in  that  matter,  you  know  it  or  you  do  not  know  it. 
If  you  do  know  it,  you  are  inexcusable  for  not  designating 
the  man  and  proving  the  fact.  If  you  do  not  know  it,  you  are 
inexcusable  for  asserting  it,  and  especially  for  persisting  in 
the  assertion  after  you  have  tried  and  failed  to  make  the 
proof.  You  need  not  be  told  that  persisting  in  a  charge  which 
one  does  not  know  to  be  true,  is  simply  malicious  slander." 
In  effect  Lincoln  said,  "You  know  it  or  you  do  not  know  it. 
If  you  know  it  you  are  inexcusable.  If  you  do  not  know  it 
you  are  inexcusable.  Whichever  horn  of  the  dilemma  you 
accept,  your  conduct  is  inexcusable." 

In  order  to  be  conclusive  a  dilemma  must  meet  two  require- 
ments. First,  there  must  be  only  two  possibilities  in  the  case; 
the  alternative  must  include  these  exactly.  Second,  both 
members  of  the  alternative,  or  "horns"  of  the  dilemma  must 
be  untenable.  To  ignore  or  fail  to  comply  with  either  of  these 
requirements  is  fatal  to  this  method  of  refutation.  Lincoln, 
in  the  following  quotation,  shows  that  Douglas  has  violated 
the  first  of  these  requirements.  He  refuses  to  accept  either 
of  the  horns  of  the  dilemma  which  Douglas  has  sought  to 
force  upon  him,  by  pointing  out  a  third  possibility.  On  this 
third  possibility,  overlooked  by  Douglas,  he  can  stand  with 
safety.    He  says: — 

"Judge  Douglas  finds  the  Republicans  insisting  that  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  includes  all  men,  black  as  well 
as  white,  and  forthwith  he  boldly  denies  that  it  includes 


REFUTATION  265 

negroes  at  all,  and  proceeds  to  argue  gravely  that  all  who 
contend  it  does,  do  so  only  because  they  went  to  vote,  to  eat 
and  sleep,  and  marry  with  negroes.  He  will  have  it  that 
they  cannot  be  consistent  else.  Now  I  protest  against  tliis 
counterfeit  logic  which  concludes  that  because  I  do  not  want 
a  black  woman  for  a  slave  I  must  necessarily  want  her  for  a 
wife,  I  need  not  have  her  for  either.  I  can  just  leave  her 
alone." 

IV.  Residues. 

The  method  of  residues  consists  in  stating  all  the  possible 
conclusions  regarding  the  controverted  subject  and  then 
destroying  all  of  these  except  one  which  is  then  regarded  as 
the  true  conclusion.  For  example,  there  are  three  possi- 
bilities, A,  B,  and  C.  A  and  B  are  false.  Therefore  the  pre- 
sumption is  that  C  is  true.  It  will  be  seen  that  this  process  is 
destructive  and  hence  belongs  with  refutation.  This  method 
of  refutation  must  be  used  with  great  care.  It  is  absolutely 
essential  that  every  possibiUty  be  included  in  the  process. 
If  one  possibility  is  overlooked  the  refutation  is  worthless. 
This  is  true  because  no  one  can  tell  whether  the  known  possi- 
bility is  the  true  one  or  whether  the  possibility  which  has 
been  omitted  is  the  true  one.  In  such  a  case  no  conclusion  is 
reached.  Even  when  it  is  apparent  that  the  entire  field  has 
been  covered,  and  that  every  possibility  has  been  stated 
the  residuary  part  should  be  supported  by  direct  positive 
proof.  This  will  offset  the  suspicion,  which  is  otherwise 
ever  present  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  listening  to  or 
reading  the  argimient,  that  perhaps  one  possibility  has  been 
overlooked. 

Foster  in  his  Argumentation  and  Debate  quotes  two  excellent 
examples  of  this  method  of  refutation.  The  first  of  these  is 
taken  from  Burke's  Speech  on  Conciliation.  After  showing 
that  a  fierce  spirit  of  Hberty  has  developed  in  the  American 


266  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

colonies  Burke  asks  what  is  to  be  done  with  that  spirit. 
Answering  his  own  question  he  says: — 

"  'As  far  as  I  am  capable  of  discerning  there  are  but  three 
ways  of  proceeding  relative  to  this  stubborn  spirit  which 
prevails  in  your  colonies,  and  disturbs  your  government. 
These  are — to  change  that  spirit,  as  inconvenient,  by  removing 
the  cause;  to  prosecute  it  as  criminal;  or  to  cope  with  it  as  nec- 
essary. I  would  not  be  guilty  of  an  imperfect  enumeration; 
I  can  think  of  but  these  three.  Another  has  indeed  been 
started, — that  of  giving  up  the  colonies;  but  it  met  so  slight 
a  reception  that  I  do  not  think  myself  obliged  to  dwell  a 
great  while  upon  it.  It  is  nothing  but  a  little  sally  of  anger, 
Hke  the  frowardness  of  peevish  children,  who  when  they 
cannot  get  all  they  would  have,  are  resolved  to  take  nothing. ' 

"  Burke  then  proceeds  to  show  that  the  first  and  second  of 
these  plans  are  impracticable,  and  concludes  with  the  follow- 
ing characteristic,  logical  summary: — 

"'If,  then,  the  removal  of  the  causes  of  this  spirit  of  Ameri- 
can liberty  be  for  the  greater  part,  or  rather  entirely,  im- 
practicable; if  the  ideas  of  criminal  process  be  inapplicable — 
or  if  applicable,  are  in  the  highest  degree  inexpedient — what 
way  yet  remains?  No  way  is  open  but  the  third  and  last — 
to  comply  with  the  American  spirit  as  necessary;  or,  if  you 
please,  to  submit  to  it  as  a  necessary  evil.' 

"  Huxley,  in  his  first  lecture  on  Evolution,  presented  three 
hypotheses  regarding  the  origin  of  the  universe: — 

" '  So  far  as  I  know,  there  are  only  three  hypotheses  which 
ever  have  been  entertained,  or  which  well  can  be  entertained, 
respecting  the  past  history  of  Nature.  I  will,  in  the  first 
place,  state  the  hypotheses,  and  then  I  will  consider  what 
evidence  bearing  upon  them  is  in  our  possession,  and  by  what 
light  of  criticism  that  evidence  is  to  be  interpreted. 

Upon  the  first  hypothesis,  the  assumption  is  that  phenom- 
ena of  Nature  similar  to  those  exhibited  by  the  present  world 


REFUTATION  267 

have  always  existed;  in  other  words,  that  the  universe  has 
existed  from  all  eternity  in  what  may  be  broadly  termed  its 
present  condition. 

The  second  hypothesis  is,  that  the  present  state  of  things 
has  had  only  a  limited  duration;  and  that  at  some  period  in 
the  past,  a  condition  of  the  world,  essentially  similar  to  that 
which  we  now  know,  came  into  existence,  without  any  pre- 
cedent condition  from  which  it  could  have  naturally  pro- 
ceeded. The  assumption  that  successive  states  of  Nature 
have  arisen,  each  without  any  relation  of  natural  causation 
to  an  antecedent  state,  is  a  mere  modification  of  this  second 
hypothesis. 

The  third  hypothesis  also  assumes  that  the  present  state 
of  things  has  had  but  a  limited  duration;  but  it  supposes 
that  this  state  has  been  evolved  by  a  natural  process  from 
an  antecedent  state,  and  that  from  another,  and  so  on;  and 
on  tliis  hypothesis,  the  attempt  to  assign  any  limit  to  the 
series  of  past  changes  is  usually  given  up.' 

"  Huxley  thus  destroyed  the  first  two  h3^otheses  and  left 
the  third — since  called  the  Theory  of  Evolution — standing 
alone.  Following  this  indirect,  destructive  method  of  proof, 
Huxley  offered  direct,  constructive  proof  of  the  probable 
soundness  of  the  Theory  of  Evolution.  Such  positive  proof 
should  always  be  offered  in  corroboration  of  negative 
proof,  for  the  method  of  residues  is,  at  best,  only  an  indirect 
argument.  The  chances  of  overlooking  a  possibility,  or 
of  failing  completely  to  destroy  those  dealt  with,  are  so  great 
that  the  result  of  the  indirect  method  should  be  reinforced 
by  direct  argument." 

V.  Inconsistencies. 

When  a  witness  testifies  in  a  court  of  law  he  injures  his  own 
credibility  as  soon  as  one  part  of  his  story  contradicts  another 
part.    His  entire  account  of  the  events  about  which  he  has 


268  ARGUMENTATION  AND  DEBATE 

been  called  to  give  testimony  must  be  consistent.  Any 
inconsistency  may  prove  fatal  to  the  acceptance  of  his  testi- 
mony. In  like  manner  any  inconsistency  in  an  argmnent 
may  prove  fatal  to  its  acceptance.  The  exposure  of  such 
inconsistencies  in  an  opponent's  argument  is  one  of  the 
most  important  methods  of  refutation.  In  most  cases  the 
difficulty  of  the  task  is  greatly  increased  by  the  form  in 
which  such  inconsistencies  usually  occur.  Seldom  are  they 
apparent.  In  most  cases  the  error  is  revealed  only  after  the 
argument  has  been  carefully  analyzed  and  the  inconsistent 
parts  stripped  of  their  covering  of  confusing  language. 

The  following  quotation  taken  from  the  argument  of 
Lincoln  in  one  of  the  Lincoln-Douglas  debates  shows  the 
application  of  this  method.  Douglas  had  maintained  that 
slavery  could  be  lawfully  excluded  from  a  territory  in 
spite  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  In  refuting  this  argu- 
ment by  exposing  the  inconsistency  which  it  contained, 
Lincoln  said: — 

"The  Dred  Scott  Decision  expressly  gives  every  citizen 
of  the  United  States  a  right  to  carry  liis  slaves  into  the  United 
States  Territories.  Now,  there  was  some  inconsistency  in 
saying  that  the  decision  was  right,  and  saying,  too,  that  the 
people  of  the  Territory  could  lawfully  drive  slavery  out  again. 
When  all  the  trash,  the  words,  the  collateral  matter,  was 
cleared  away  from  it, — all  the  chaff  was  fanned  out  of  it, — 
it  was  a  bare  absurdity:  no  less  than  that  a  thing  may  be 
lawfully  driven  away  from  a  place  where  it  has  a  lawful  right 
to  be.  Clear  it  of  all  the  verbiage,  and  that  is  the  naked 
truth  for  his  proposition — that  a  thing  may  be  lawfully  driven 
from  the  place  where  it  has  a  lawful  right  to  stay." 

VI.  Adopting  an  opponent's  evidence. 

This  method  of  refutation  consists  in  taking  evidence 
which  an  opponent  has  introduced  in  favor  of  his  own  argu- 


REFUTATION  269 

ment  and  showing  that  in  reahty  it  supports  the  opposite 
contention.  This  method  of  refutation  is  so  effective  that 
it  should  never  be  neglected  when  an  opportunity  to  use  it 
is  presented.  The  opportunity  may  arise  from  the  failure 
of  an  opponent  to  grasp  the  full  bearing  of  the  evidence 
which  he  offers,  or  it  may  arise  from  an  unexpected  turn  in 
the  discussion.  Evidence  may  be  introduced  in  the  begin- 
ning of  a  discussion  to  support  a  particular  contention  by 
which  it  favors  the  writer  or  speaker  who  introduces  it.  Later 
this  same  evidence  may  be  interpreted  as  supporting  a  con- 
tention entirely  adverse  to  the  writer  or  speaker  who  intro- 
duced it.  An  excellent  example  of  this  method  of  refutation 
is  found  in  Bouton's  Lincoln  and  Douglas  Debates  in  Lincoln's 
Cooper  Institute  Speech,  where  he  turns  the  warning  of 
Washington  against  those  who  had  been  quoting  it  against 
him. 

"Some  of  you  delight  to  flaunt  in  our  faces  the  warning 
against  sectional  parties  given  by  Washington  in  his  Farewell 
Address.  Less  than  eight  years  before  Washington  gave 
that  warning,  he  had,  as  President  of  the  United  States, 
approved  and  signed  an  act  of  Congress  enforcing  the  pro- 
hibition of  slavery  in  the  Northwest  Territory,  which  act 
embodied  the  policy  of  the  Government  upon  that  subject 
up  to  and  at  the  very  moment  he  penned  that  warning;  and 
about  one  year  after  he  penned  it,  he  wrote  Lafayette  that 
he  considered  that  prohibition  a  wise  measure,  expressing 
in  the  same  connection  his  hope  that  we  should  at  some  time 
have  a  confederacy  of  free  states, 

"Bearing  this  in  mind,  and  seeing  that  sectionaUsm  has 
since  risen  upon  this  same  subject,  is  that  warning  a  weapon 
in  your  hands  against  us,  or  in  our  hands  against  you?  Could 
Washington  himself  speak,  would  he  cast  the  blame  of  that 
sectionalism  upon  us  who  sustain  his  policy,  or  upon  you  who 
repudiate  it?    We  respect  the  warning  of  Washington,  and 


270  ARGUMENTyiTION  AND  DEBATE 

we  commend  it  to  you,  together  with  his  example  pointing 
to  the  right  appHcation  of  it." 

We  have  now  considered  the  important  methods  of  refuta- 
tion. Their  successful  use  depends  upon  the  conscientious 
effort  of  the  student.  Just  as  a  boy  cannot  hope  to  learn  to 
swim  by  sitting  on  the  bank  of  a  stream  and  reading  a  book 
containing  directions  on  how  to  swim,  so  can  no  student 
hope  to  become  successful  in  refutation  by  a  study  of  the 
methods  explained  and  illustrated  in  this  chapter.  He  must 
master  the  theory  of  refutation,  but  it  does  not  become  an 
effective  instrument  in  his  hands  until  he  has  applied  it  in 
actual  practice.  Moreover,  just  as  the  boy  can  better 
profit  by  the  instructions  regarding  swimming  after  he  has 
actually  tried  to  swim,  so  can  the  debater  better  profit  by 
the  theory  of  refutation  after  he  has  engaged  in  some  real 
debates. 

EXERCISES  IN  REFUTATION 

I.  Point  out  the  different  methods  of  refutation  employed  in  the 
arguments  in  Appendix  A;  Appendix  B;  Appendix  C. 

II.  Refute  the  following  statements  and  name  the  method  of 
refutation  employed  in  each  case. 

1.  High  school  courses  should  be  wholly  prescribed.     No 

electives  should  be  offered. 

2.  So  far  as  political  rights  are  concerned  all  citizens  should 

have  equal  privileges.  Therefore  women  should  have 
the  right  to  vote. 

3.  The  term  of  office  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 

should  be  extended  to  eight  years  because  we  should 
not  run  the  risk  of  losing  the  services  of  an  efficient 
president  at  the  end  of  four  years. 

4.  Our  government  should  annex  Cuba  because  we  must  gain 

possession  of  all  territory  adjacent  to,  or  not  separated 
by  foreign  possessions  from,  the  United  States. 

5.  There  is  no  ground  for  anticipating  an  immediate  war  with 

Japan  since  she  has  been  compelled  to  come  to  our  terms 
in  the  recent  disputes. 


REFUTATION  271 

III.  What  methods  of  refutation  are  employed  by  Burke  in  his 

Speech  on  Concihation?     By  Webster  in  his  Reply  to 
Hayne? 

IV.  In  the  next  class  debate  point  out  and  name  all  the  methods 

of  refutation  employed  by  your  opponents  and  yourself. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A:  The  Lincoln-Douglas  Debate  at  Alton  273 

APPENDIX  B:  Brief  of  the  Lincoln-Douglas  Debate 
AT  Alton 317 

APPENDIX  C:  Lincoln's  Cooper  Institute  Speech 324 

APPENDIX  D:  Memorandum  of  Agreement  for  High 
School  Debating  League  under  the  Direction  of  a 
College  or  University 342 

APPENDIX  E:  Debating  Agreement  for  A  League  com- 
posed OF  Five  Institutions 346 

APPENDIX  F:  Memorandum  of  Agreement  for  a  Tri- 
angular Debating  League 352 

APPENDIX  G:  Propositions 355 


APPENDIX  A 

The  Lincoln-Douglas  Debate  at  Alton 

[October  15,  1858] 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS'S  SPEECH 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  It  is  now  nearly  four  months  since 
the  canvass  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself  commenced.  On 
the  1 6th  of  June  the  Republican  Convention  assembled  at  Spring- 
field and  nominated  Mr.  Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  the  United 
States  Senate,  and  he,  on  that  occasion,  delivered  a  speech  in  which 
he  laid  down  what  he  understood  to  be  the  Republican  creed  and 
the  platform  on  which  he  proposed  to  stand  during  the  contest. 
The  principal  points  in  that  speech  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  were:  First, 
that  this  government  could  not  endure  permanently  divided  into 
Free  and  Slave  States,  as  our  fathers  made  it;  that  they  must  all 
become  free  or  all  become  slave;  all  become  one  thing,  or  all  be- 
come the  other, — otherwise  this  Union  could  not  continue  to  exist. 

273 


274  APPENDIX  A 

I  give  5'ou  his  opinions  almost  in  the  identical  language  he  used. 
His  second  proposition  was  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  because  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  urging 
as  an  especial  reason  for  his  opposition  to  that  decision  that  it 
deprived  the  negroes  of  the  rights  and  benefits  of  that  clause  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  guarantees  to  the 
citizens  of  each  State  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  of 
the  citizens  of  the  several  States.  On  the  loth  of  July  I  returned 
home,  and  delivered  a  speech  to  the  people  of  Chicago,  in  which  I 
announced  it  to  be  my  purpose  to  appeal  to  the  people  of  Illinois 
to  sustain  the  course  I  had  pursued  in  Congress.  In  that  speech  I 
joined  issue  with  ]\Ir.  Lincoln  on  the  points  which  he  had  pre- 
sented. Thus  there  was  an  issue  clear  and  distinct  made  up  be- 
tween us  on  these  two  propositions  laid  down  in  the  speech  of  IVIr. 
Lincoln  at  Springfield,  and  controverted  by  me  in  my  reply  to 
him  at  Chicago.  On  the  next  day,  the  nth  of  July,  Mr.  Lincoln 
replied  to  me  at  Chicago,  explaining  at  some  length  and  reaffirm- 
ing the  positions  which  he  had  taken  in  his  Springfield  speech. 
In  that  Chicago  speech  he  even  went  further  than  he  had  before, 
and  uttered  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  negro  being  on  an  equality 
with  the  white  man.  He  adopted  in  support  of  this  position  the 
argument  which  Lovejoy  and  Codding  and  other  Abolition  lec- 
turers had  made  familiar  in  the  northern  and  central  portions  of 
the  State;  to  wit,  that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  having 
declared  all  men  free  and  equal,  by  divine  law,  also  that  negro 
equality  was  an  inalienable  right,  of  which  they  could  not  be  de- 
prived. He  insisted,  in  that  speech,  that  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence included  the  negro  in  the  clause  asserting  that  all 
men  v/ere  created  equal,  and  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  one  man 
was  allowed  to  take  the  position  that  it  did  not  include  the  negro, 
others  might  take  the  position  that  it  did  not  include  other  men. 
He  said  that  all  these  distinctions  between  this  man  and  that  man, 
this  race  and  the  other  race,  must  be  discarded,  and  we  must  all 
stand  by  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  declaring  that  all  men 
were  created  equal. 

The  issue  thus  being  made  up  between  Mr.  Lincoln  and  myself 
on  three  points,  we  went  before  the  people  of  the  State.  During 
the  following  seven  weeks,  between  the  Chicago  speeches  and  our 
first  meeting  at  Ottawa,  he  and  I  addressed  large  assemblages  of 
the  people  in  many  of  the  central  counties.  In  my  speeches  I  con- 
fined myself  closely  to  those  three  positions  which  he  had  taken, 


APPENDIX  A  27s 

controverting  his  proposition  that  this  Union  could  not  exist  as 
our  fathers  made  it,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States,  contro- 
verting his  proposition  of  a  crusade  against  the  Supreme  Court 
because  of  tlie  Dred  Scott  decision,  and  controverting  his  prop- 
osition that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  included  and  meant 
the  negroes  as  well  as  the  white  men,  when  it  declared  all  men  to 
be  created  equal.  I  supposed  at  that  time  that  these  propositions 
constituted  a  distinct  issue  between  us,  and  that  the  opposite 
positions  we  had  taken  upon  them  we  would  be  willing  to  be  held 
to  in  every  part  of  the  State.  I  never  intended  to  waver  one  hair's 
breadth  from  that  issue  either  in  the  north  or  the  south  or  wher- 
ever I  should  address  the  people  of  Illinois.  I  hold  that  when  the 
time  arrives  that  I  cannot  proclaim  my  political  creed  in  the  same 
terms,  not  only  in  the  northern,  but  in  the  southern  part  of  Illinois, 
not  only  in  the  Northern,  but  the  Southern  States,  and  wherever 
the  American  flag  waves  over  American  soil,  that  then  there  must 
be  something  wrong  in  that  creed ;  so  long  as  we  live  under  a  com- 
mon Constitution,  so  long  as  we  live  in  a  confederacy  of  sovereign 
and  equal  States,  joined  together  as  one  for  certain  purposes,  that 
any  political  creed  is  radically  wrong  which  cannot  be  proclaimed 
in  every  State  and  every  section  of  that  Union,  alike.  I  took  up 
Mr.  Lincoln's  three  propositions  in  my  several  speeches,  analyzed 
them,  and  pointed  out  what  I  believed  to  be  the  radical  errors  con- 
tained in  them.  First,  in  regard  to  his  doctrine  that  this  govern- 
ment was  in  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  which  says  that  a  house 
divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,  I  repudiated  it  as  a  slander 
upon  the  immortal  framers  of  our  Constitution.  I  then  said,  I 
have  often  repeated,  and  now  again  assert,  that  in  my  opinion  our 
government  can  endure  forever,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave 
States  as  our  fathers  made  it, — each  State  having  the  right  to 
prohibit,  abolish,  or  sustain  slavery,  just  as  it  pleases.  This  govern- 
ment was  made  upon  the  great  basis  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States,  the  right  of  each  State  to  regulate  its  own  domestic  institu- 
tions to  suit  itself;  and  that  right  was  conferred  with  the  under- 
standing and  expectation  that  inasmuch  as  each  locality  had 
separate  interests,  each  locality  must  have  different  and  distinct 
local  and  domestic  institutions,  corresponding  to  its  wants  and 
interests.  Our  fathers  knew  when  they  made  the  government  that 
the  laws  and  institutions  which  were  well  adapted  to  the  Green 
Mountains  of  Vermont  were  unsuited  to  the  rice  plantations  of 
South  Carolina.    They  knew  then,  as  well  as  we  know  now,  that 


276  APPENDIX  A 

the  laws  and  institutions  which  would  be  well  adapted  to  the 
beautiful  prairies  of  Illinois  would  not  be  suited  to  the  mining 
regions  of  California.  They  knew  that  in  a  Repubhc  as  broad  as 
this,  having  such  a  variety  of  soil,  climate,  and  interest,  there  must 
necessarily  be  a  corresponding  variety  of  local  laws, — the  policy 
and  institutions  of  each  State  adapted  to  its  condition  and  wants. 
For  this  reason  this  Union  was  estabhshed  on  the  right  of  each 
State  to  do  as  it  pleased  on  the  question  of  slavery,  and  every  other 
question;  and  the  various  States  were  not  allowed  to  complain  of, 
much  less  interfere  with,  the  poHcy  of  their  neighbors. 

Suppose  the  doctrine  advocated  by  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Aboli- 
tionists of  this  day  had  prevailed  when  the  Constitution  was  made, 
what  would  have  been  the  result?  Imagine  for  a  moment  that  Mr. 
Lincoln  had  been  a  member  of  the  Convention  that  framed  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  that  when  its  members  were 
about  to  sign  that  wonderful  document,  he  had  arisen  in  that 
Convention  as  he  did  at  Springfield  this  summer,  and,  addressing 
himself  to  the  President,  had  said,  "A  house  divided  against  itself 
cannot  stand;  this  government,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave  States 
carmot  endure,  they  must  aU  be  free  or  all  be  slave;  they  must  all 
be  one  thing,  or  all  the  other, — otherwise,  it  is  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  God,  and  cannot  continue  to  exist;" — suppose  Mr.  Lincoln 
had  convinced  that  body  of  sages  that  that  doctrine  was  sound, 
what  would  have  been  the  result?  Remember  that  the  Union  was 
then  composed  of  thirteen  States,  twelve  of  which  were  slave- 
holding,  and  one  free.  Do  you  think  that  the  one  Free  State 
would  have  outvoted  the  twelve  slaveholding  States,  and  thus 
have  secured  the  abolition  of  slavery?  On  the  other  hand,  would 
not  the  twelve  slaveholding  States  have  outvoted  the  one  free 
State,  and  thus  have  fastened  slavery,  by  a  constitutional  provi- 
sion, on  every  foot  of  the  American  Republic  forever?  You  see 
that  if  this  Abolition  doctrine  of  Mr.  Lincoln  had  prevailed  when 
the  government  was  made,  it  would  have  established  slavery  as  a 
permanent  institution  in  all  the  States,  whether  they  wanted  it 
or  not;  and  the  question  for  us  to  determine  in  Illinois  now,  as  one 
of  the  Free  States,  is  whether  or  not  we  are  willing,  having  become 
the  majority  section,  to  enforce  a  doctrine  on  the  minority  which 
we  would  have  resisted  with  our  heart's  blood  had  it  been  at- 
tempted on  us  when  we  were  in  a  minority.  How  has  the  South 
lost  her  power  as  the  majority  section  in  this  Union,  and  how  have 
the  Free  States  gained  it,  except  under  the  operation  of  that  prin- 


APPENDIX  A  277 

ciple  which  declares  the  right  of  the  people  of  each  State  and  each 
Territory  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  in  their 
own  way?  It  was  under  that  principle  that  slavery  was  abolished 
in  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania;  it  was  under  that  principle  that  one- 
half  of  the  slaveholding  States  became  free;  it  was  under  that 
principle  that  the  number  of  Free  States  increased  until,  from  being 
one  out  of  twelve  States,  we  have  grown  to  be  the  majority  of 
States  of  the  whole  Union,  with  the  power  to  control  the  House  of 
Representatives  and  Senate,  and  the  power,  consequently,  to 
elect  a  President  by  Northern  votes,  without  the  aid  of  a  Southern 
State.  Having  obtained  this  power  under  the  operation  of  that 
great  principle,  are  you  now  prepared  to  abandon  the  principle 
and  declare  that  merely  because  we  have  the  power  you  will  wage 
a  war  against  the  Southern  States  and  their  institutions  until  you 
force  them  to  abolish  slavery  everywhere? 

After  having  pressed  these  arguments  home  on  Mr.  Lincoln 
for  seven  weeks,  publishing  a  number  of  my  speeches,  we  met  at 
Ottawa  in  joint  discussion,  and  he  then  began  to  crawfish  a  little, 
and  let  himself  down.  I  there  propounded  certain  questions  to 
him.  Amongst  others,  I  asked  him  whether  he  would  vote  for 
the  admission  of  any  more  Slave  States,  in  the  event  the  people 
wanted  them.  He  would  not  answer.  I  then  told  him  that  if  he 
did  not  answer  the  question  there,  I  would  renew  it  at  Freeport, 
and  would  then  trot  him  down  into  Egypt,  and  again  put  it  to 
him.  Well,  at  Freeport,  knowing  that  the  next  joint  discussion 
took  place  in  Egypt,  and  being  in  dread  of  it,  he  did  answer  my 
question  in  regard  to  no  more  Slave  States  in  a  mode  which  he 
hoped  would  be  satisfactory  to  me,  and  accomplish  the  object 
he  had  in  view.  I  will  show  you  what  his  answer  was.  After 
saying  that  he  was  not  pledged  to  the  Reupblican  doctrine  of 
"no  more  Slave  States,"  he  declared: 

"I  state  to  you  freely,  frankly,  that  I  should  be  exceedingly 
sorry  to  ever  be  put  in  the  position  of  having  to  pass  upon  that 
question.  I  should  be  exceedingly  glad  to  know  that  there  never 
would  be  another  Slave  State  admitted  into  this  Union." 

Here  permit  me  to  remark,  that  I  do  not  think  the  people  will 
ever  force  him  into  a  position  against  his  will.    He  went  on  to  say: 

"But  I  must  add,  in  regard  to  this,  that  if  slavery  shall  be  kept 
out  of  the  Territory  during  the  Territorial  existence  of  any  one 
given  Territory,  and  then  the  people  should,  having  a  fair  chance 


278  APPENDIX  A 

and  a  clear  field,  when  they  come  to  adopt  a  constitution,  if  they 
should  do  the  extraordinary  thing  of  adopting  a  slave  constitution 
uninfluenced  by  the  actual  presence  of  the  institution  among 
them,  I  see  no  alternative,  if  we  own  the  country,  but  we  must 
admit  it  into  the  Union." 

That  answer  Mr.  Lincoln  supposed  would  satisfy  the  old  line 
Whigs,  composed  of  Kentuckians  and  Virginians,  down  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  State.  Now,  what  does  it  amount  to?  I 
desired  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  to  allow  Kansas  to  come 
into  the  Union  with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  desired.  He 
would  not  answer,  but  in  a  roundabout  way  said  that  if  slavery 
should  be  kept  out  of  a  Territory  during  the  whole  of  its  Territorial 
existence,  and  then  the  people,  when  they  adopted  a  State  Con- 
stitution, asked  admission  as  a  Slave  State,  he  supposed  he  would 
have  to  let  the  State  come  in.  The  case  I  put  to  him  was  an  en- 
tirely different  one.  I  desired  to  know  whether  he  would  vote  to 
admit  a  State  if  Congress  had  not  prohibited  slavery  in  it  during 
its  Territorial  existence,  as  Congress  never  pretended  to  do  under 
Clay's  Compromise  measures  of  1850.  He  would  not  answer,  and 
I  have  not  yet  been  able  to  get  an  answer  from  him.  I  have  asked 
him  whether  he  would  vote  to  admit  Nebraska,  if  her  people  asked 
to  come  in  as  a  State  with  a  constitution  recognizing  slavery,  and 
he  refused  to  answer.  I  have  put  the  question  to  him  with  refer- 
ence to  New  Mexico,  and  he  has  not  uttered  a  word  in  answer.  I 
have  enumerated  the  Territories,  one  after  another,  putting  the 
same  question  to  him  with  reference  to  each,  and  he  has  not  said, 
and  will  not  say,  whether,  if  elected  to  Congress,  he  will  vote  to 
admit  any  Territory  now  in  existence  with  such  a  constitution 
as  her  people  may  adopt.  He  invents  a  case  which  does  not  exist, 
and  cannot  exist  under  this  government,  and  answers  it;  but  he 
will  not  answer  the  question  I  put  to  him  in  connection  with  any 
of  the  Territories  now  in  existence.  The  contract  we  entered  into 
with  Texas  when  she  entered  the  Union  obliges  us  to  allow  four 
States  to  be  formed  out  of  the  old  State,  and  admitted  with  or 
without  slavery,  as  the  respective  inhabitants  of  each  may  deter- 
mine. I  have  asked  Mr.  Lincoln  three  times  in  our  joint  discus- 
sions whether  he  would  vote  to  redeem  that  pledge,  and  he  has 
never  yet  answered.  He  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  on  the  subject. 
He  would  rather  answer  as  to  a  state  of  the  case  which  will  never 
arise  than  commit  himself  by  telling  what  he  would  do  in  a  case 
which  would  come  up  for  his  action  soon  after  his  election  to  Con- 


APPENDIX  A  279 

gress.  Why  can  he  not  say  whether  he  is  willing  to  allow  the  people 
of  each  State  to  have  slavery  or  not  as  they  please,  and  to  come 
into  the  Union,  when  they  have  the  requisite  population,  as  a 
Slave  or  a  Free  State  as  they  decide?  I  have  no  trouble  in  answer- 
ing the  question.  I  have  said  everywhere,  and  now  repeat  it  to 
you,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  Slave  State  they  have  a 
right,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  form  such  a 
State,  and  I  will  let  them  come  into  the  Union  with  slavery  or 
without,  as  they  determine.  If  the  people  of  any  other  Territory 
desire  slavery,  let  them  have  it.  If  they  do  not  want  it,  let  them 
prohibit  it.  It  is  their  business,  not  mine.  It  is  none  of  our  busi- 
ness in  Illinois  whether  Kansas  is  a  Free  State  or  a  Slave  State, 
It  is  none  of  your  business  in  Missouri  whether  Kansas  shall  adopt 
slavery  or  reject  it.  It  is  the  business  of  her  people,  and  none  of 
yours.  The  people  of  Kansas  have  as  much  right  to  decide  that 
question  for  themselves  as  you  have  in  Missouri  to  decide  it  for 
yourselves,  or  we  in  Illinois  to  decide  it  for  ourselves. 

And  here  I  may  repeat  what  I  have  said  in  every  speech  I  have 
made  in  Illinois,  that  I  fought  the  Lecompton  Constitution  to  its 
death,  not  because  of  the  slavery  clause  in  it,  but  because  it  was 
not  the  act  and  deed  of  the  people  of  Kansas.  I  said  then  in  Con- 
gress, and  I  say  now,  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas  want  a  Slave 
State,  they  have  a  right  to  have  it.  If  they  wanted  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  they  had  a  right  to  have  it.  I  was  opposed  to  that 
constitution  because  I  did  not  believe  that  it  was  the  act  and  deed 
of  the  people,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  act  of  a  small,  pitiful 
minority  acting  in  the  name  of  the  majority.  When  at  last  it  was 
determined  to  send  that  constitution  back  to  the  people,  and, 
accordingly,  in  August  last,  the  question  of  admission  under  it 
was  submitted  to  a  popular  vote,  the  citizens  rejected  it  by  nearly 
ten  to  one,  thus  showing  conclusively  that  I  was  right  when  I  said 
that  the  Lecompton  Constitution  was  not  the  act  and  deed  of  the 
people  of  Kansas,  and  did  not  embody  their  will. 

I  hold  that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  under  our  system  of 
government,  which  has  the  right  to  force  a  constitution  upon  an 
unwilling  people.  Suppose  that  there  had  been  a  majority  of  ten 
to  one  in  favor  of  slavery  in  Kansas,  and  suppose  there  had  been 
an  Abolition  President  and  an  Abolition  Administration,  and  by 
some  means  the  Abolitionists  succeeded  in  forcing  an  Abolition 
Constitution  upon  those  slaveholding  people,  would  the  people 
of  the  South  have  submitted  to  that  act  for  an  instant?    Well, 


28o  APPENDIX  A 

if  you  of  the  South  would  not  have  submitted  to  it  a  day,  how 
can  you,  as  fair,  honorable,  and  honest  men,  insist  on  putting  a 
slave  constitution  on  a  people  who  desire  a  Free  State?  Your 
safety  and  ours  depend  upon  both  of  us  acting  in  good  faith,  and 
living  up  to  that  great  principle  which  asserts  the  right  of  every 
people  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institutions  to  suit 
themselves,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

Most  of  the  men  who  denounced  my  course  on  the  Lecompton 
question  objected  to  it,  not  because  I  was  not  right,  but  because 
they  thought  it  expedient  at  that  time,  for  the  sake  of  keeping 
the  party  together,  to  do  wrong.  I  never  knew  the  Democratic 
party  to  violate  any  one  of  its  principles,  out  of  policy  or  ex- 
pediency, that  it  did  not  pay  the  debt  with  sorrow.  There  is  no 
safety  or  success  for  our  party  unless  we  always  do  right,  and 
trust  the  consequences  to  God  and  the  people.  I  chose  not  to  de- 
part from  principle  for  the  sake  of  expediency  on  the  Lecompton 
question,  and  I  never  intend  to  do  it  on  that  or  any  other  question. 

But  I  am  told  that  I  would  have  been  all  right  if  I  had  only 
voted  for  the  English  bill  after  the  Lecompton  was  killed.  You 
know  a  general  pardon  was  granted  to  all  political  offenders  on 
the  Lecompton  question,  provided  they  would  only  vote  for  the 
English  bill.  I  did  not  accept  the  benefits  of  that  pardon  for  the 
reason  that  I  had  been  right  in  the  course  I  had  pursued,  and 
hence  did  not  require  any  forgiveness.  Let  us  see  how  the  result 
has  been  worked  out.  English  brought  in  his  bill  referring  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  back  to  the  people,  with  the  provision 
that  if  it  was  rejected,  Kansas  should  be  kept  out  of  the  Union 
untU  she  had  the  full  ratio  of  population  required  for  member 
of  Congress, — thus  in  effect  declaring  that  if  the  people  of  Kansas 
would  only  consent  to  come  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton 
Constitution,  and  have  a  Slave  State  when  they  did  not  want  it, 
they  should  be  admitted  with  a  population  of  35,000;  but  that  if 
they  were  so  obstinate  as  to  insist  upon  having  just  such  a  consti- 
tution as  they  thought  best,  and  to  desire  admission  as  a  free 
State,  then  they  should  be  kept  out  until  they  had  93,420  inhabit- 
ants. I  then  said,  and  I  now  repeat  to  you,  that  whenever  Kansas 
has  people  enough  for  a  Slave  State  she  has  people  enough  for  a 
Free  State.  I  was,  and  am  willing  to  adopt  the  rule  that  no  State 
shall  ever  come  into  the  Union  until  she  has  the  full  ratio  of  popula- 
tion for  a  member  of  Congress,  provided  that  rule  is  made  uni- 
form.   I  made  that  proposition  in  the  Senate  last  winter,  but  a 


APPENDIX  A  281 

majority  of  the  Senators  would  not  agree  to  it;  and  I  then  said 
to  them,  If  you  will  not  adopt  the  general  rule,  I  will  not  consent 
to  make  an  exception  of  Kansas. 

I  hold  that  it  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  this 
government  to  throw  the  weight  of  Federal  power  into  the  scale, 
either  in  favor  of  the  Free  or  the  Slave  States.  Equality  among 
all  the  States  of  this  Union  is  a  fundamental  principle  in  our  polit- 
ical system.  We  have  no  more  right  to  throw  the  weight  of  the 
Federal  Government  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  the  slaveholding 
than  the  Free  States,  and  last  of  all  should  our  friends  in  the  South 
consent  for  a  moment  that  Congress  should  withhold  its  powers 
either  way  when  they  know  that  there  is  a  majority  against  them 
in  both  Houses  of  Congress. 

Fellow-citizens,  how  have  the  supporters  of  the  English  bill 
stood  up  to  their  pledges  not  to  admit  Kansas  until  she  obtained 
a  population  of  93,420  in  the  event  she  rejected  the  Lecompton 
Constitution?  How?  The  newspapers  inform  us  that  English 
himself,  whilst  conducting  his  canvass  for  re-election,  and  in  order 
to  secure  it,  pledged  himself  to  his  constituents  that  if  returned  he 
would  disregard  his  own  bill  and  vote  to  admit  Kansas  into  the 
Union  with  such  population  as  she  might  have  when  she  made 
appKcation.  We  are  informed  that  every  Democratic  candidate 
for  Congress  in  all  the  States  where  elections  have  recently  been 
held  was  pledged  against  the  English  bill,  with  perhaps  one  or 
two  exceptions.  Now,  if  I  had  only  done  as  these  anti-Lecompton 
men  who  voted  for  the  English  bill  in  Congress,  pledging  them- 
selves to  refuse  to  admit  Kansas  if  she  refused  to  become  a  Slave 
State  until  she  had  a  population  of  93,420  and  then  returned  to 
their  people,  forfeited  their  pledge,  and  made  a  new  pledge  to 
admit  Kansas  at  any  time  she  applied,  without  regard  to  popula- 
tion, I  would  have  had  no  trouble.  You  saw  the  whole  power 
and  patronage  of  the  Federal  Government  wielded  in  Indiana, 
Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  to  re-elect  anti-Lecompton  men  to  Con- 
gress who  voted  against  Lecompton,  then  voted  for  the  English 
bill,  and  then  denounced  the  English  bill,  and  pledged  themselves 
to  their  people  to  disregard  it.  My  sin  consists  in  not  having 
given  a  pledge,  and  then  in  not  having  afterward  forfeited  it.  For 
that  reason,  in  this  State,  every  postmaster,  every  route  agent, 
every  collector  of  the  ports,  and  every  Federal  officeholder  for- 
feits his  head  the  moment  he  expresses  a  preference  for  the  Demo- 
cratic candidates  against  Lincoln  and  his  Abolition  associates. 


282  APPENDIX  A 

A  Democratic  Administration  which  we  helped  to  bring  into 
power  deems  it  consistent  with  its  fidelity  to  principle  and  its 
regard  to  duty  to  wield  its  power  in  this  State  in  behalf  of  the 
Republican  Abolition  candidates  in  every  county  and  every  Con- 
gressional District  against  the  Democratic  party.  All  I  have  to 
say  in  reference  to  the  matter  is,  that  if  that  Administration  have 
not  regard  enough  for  principle,  if  they  are  not  sufficiently  at- 
tached to  the  creed  of  the  Democratic  party,  to  bury  forever 
their  personal  hostilities  in  order  to  succeed  in  carrying  out  our 
glorious  principles,  I  have.  I  have  no  personal  difficulty  with 
Mr.  Buchanan  or  his  Cabinet.  He  chose  to  make  certain  recom- 
mendations to  Congress,  as  he  had  a  right  to  do,  on  the  Lecompton 
question.  I  could  not  vote  in  favor  of  them.  I  had  as  much  right 
to  judge  for  myself  how  I  should  vote  as  he  had  how  he  should 
recommend.  He  undertook  to  say  to  me,  "If  you  do  not  vote  as 
I  tell  you,  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your  friends."  I  rephed  to 
him,  "You  did  not  elect  me.  I  represent  lUinois,  and  I  am  account- 
able to  Illinois,  as  my  constituency,  and  to  God;  but  not  to  the 
President  or  to  any  other  power  on  earth." 

And  now  this  warfare  is  made  on  me  because  I  would  not  sur- 
render my  convictions  of  duty,  because  I  would  not  abandon  my 
constituency,  and  receive  the  orders  of  the  executive  authorities 
as  to  how  I  should  vote  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  I  hold 
that  an  attempt  to  control  the  Senate  on  the  part  of  the  Executive 
is  subversive  of  the  principles  of  our  Constitution.  The  Executive 
department  is  independent  of  the  Senate,  and  the  Senate  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  President.  In  matters  of  legislation  the  President 
has  a  veto  on  the  action  of  the  Senate,  and  in  appointments  and 
treaties  the  Senate  has  a  veto  on  the  President.  He  has  no  more 
right  to  tell  me  how  I  shall  vote  on  his  appointments  than  I  have 
to  tell  him  whether  he  shall  veto  or  approve  a  bill  that  the  Senate 
has  passed.  Whenever  you  recognize  the  right  of  the  Executive 
to  say  to  a  Senator,  "Do  this,  or  I  will  take  off  the  heads  of  your 
friends,"  you  convert  this  government  from  a  republic  into  a 
despotism.  Whenever  you  recognize  the  right  of  a  President  to 
say  to  a  member  of  Congress,  "  Vote  as  I  tell  you,  or  I  will  bring  a 
power  to  bear  against  you  at  home  which  will  crush  you,"  you 
destroy  the  independence  of  the  representative  and  convert  him 
into  a  tool  of  Executive  power.  I  resisted  this  invasion  of  the 
constitutional  rights  of  a  Senator,  and  I  intend  to  resist  it  as  long 
as  I  have  a  voice  to  speak  or  a  vote  to  give.    Yet  Mr.  Buchanan 


APPENDIX  A  283 

cannot  provoke  me  to  abandon  one  iota  of  Democratic  principles 
out  of  revenge  or  hostility  to  his  course.  I  stand  by  the  platform 
of  the  Democratic  party,  and  by  its  organization,  and  support  its 
nominees.  If  there  are  any  who  choose  to  bolt,  the  fact  only 
shows  that  they  are  not  as  good  Democrats  as  I  am. 

My  friends,  there  never  was  a  time  when  it  was  as  important 
for  the  Democratic  party,  for  all  national  men,  to  rally  and  stand 
together,  as  it  is  to-day.  We  find  all  sectional  men  giving  up  past 
differences  and  continuing  the  one  question  of  slavery;  and  when 
we  find  sectional  men  thus  uniting  we  should  unite  to  resist  them 
and  their  treasonable  designs.  Such  was  the  case  in  1850,  when 
Clay  left  the  quiet  and  peace  of  his  home,  and  again  entered  upon 
public  life  to  quell  agitation  and  restore  peace  to  a  distracted 
Union.  Then  we  Democrats,  with  Cass  at  our  head,  welcomed 
Henry  Clay,  whom  the  whole  nation  regarded  as  having  been 
preserved  by  God  for  the  times.  He  became  our  leader  in  that 
great  fight,  and  we  rallied  around  him  the  same  as  the  Whigs 
rallied  around  old  Hickory  in  1832  to  put  down  nullification. 
Thus  you  see  that  whilst  Whigs  and  Democrats  fought  fearlessly 
in  old  times  about  banks,  the  tariff,  distribution,  the  specie  circular, 
and  the  sub-treasury,  all  united  as  a  band  of  brothers  when  the 
peace,  harmony,  or  integrity  of  the  Union  was  imperiled.  It  was 
so  in  1850,  when  AboHtionism  had  even  so  far  divided  this  country, 
North  and  South,  as  to  endanger  the  peace  of  the  Union;  Whigs 
and  Democrats  united  in  establishing  the  Compromise  Measures 
of  that  year,  and  restoring  tranquillity  and  good  feeling. 

These  measures  passed  on  the  joint  action  of  the  two  parties. 
They  rested  on  the  great  principle  that  the  people  of  each  State 
and  each  Territory  should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu- 
late their  domestic  institutions  to  suit  themselves.  You  Whigs 
and  we  Democrats  justified  them  in  that  principle.  In  1854,  when 
it  became  necessary  to  organize  the  Territories  of  Kansas  and 
Nebraska,  I  brought  forward  the  bill  on  the  same  principle.  In 
the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  you  find  it  declared  to  be  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  the  Act  not  to  legislate  slavery  into  any  State  or 
Territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  institu- 
tions in  their  own  way.  I  stand  on  that  same  platform  in  1858  that 
I  did  in  1850,  1854,  and  1856.  The  Washington  "Union,"  pre- 
tending to  be  the  organ  of  the  Administration,  in  the  number  of 
the  5th  of  this  month,  devotes  three  columns  and  a  half  to  estab- 


284  APPENDIX  A 

lish  these  propositions;  first,  that  Douglas,  in  his  Freeport  speech, 
held  the  same  doctrine  that  he  did  in  his  Nebraska  bill  in  1854; 
second,  that  in  1854  Douglas  justified  the  Nebraska  bill  upon  the 
ground  that  it  was  based  upon  the  same  principle  as  Clay's  Com- 
promise Measures  of  1850.  The  "Union"  thus  proved  that  Doug- 
las was  the  same  in  1S58  that  he  was  in  1856,  1854,  and  1850,  and 
consequently  argued  that  he  was  never  a  Democrat.  Is  it  not 
funny  that  I  was  never  a  Democrat?  There  is  no  pretence  that  I 
have  changed  a  hair's  breadth.  The  "Union"  proves  by  my 
speeches  that  I  explained  the  Compromise  Measures  of  1850  just 
as  I  do  now,  and  that  I  explained  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill 
in  1854  just  as  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech,  and  yet  says  that  I 
am  not  a  Democrat,  and  cannot  be  trusted,  because  I  have  not 
changed  during  the  whole  of  that  time.  It  has  occurred  to  me 
that  in  1854  the  author  of  the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill  was 
considered  a  pretty  good  Democrat.  It  has  occurred  to  me  that 
in  1856,  when  I  was  exerting  every  nerve  and  every  energy  for 
James  Buchanan,  standing  on  the  same  platform  then  that  I  do 
now,  that  I  was  a  pretty  good  Democrat.  They  now  tell  me  that 
I  am  not  a  Democrat,  because  I  assert  that  the  people  of  a  Terri- 
tory, as  well  as  those  of  a  State,  have  the  right  to  decide  for  them- 
selves whether  slavery  can  or  cannot  exist  in  such  Territory.  Let 
me  read  what  James  Buchanan  said  on  that  point  when  he  ac- 
cepted the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  Presidency  in  1856.  In 
his  letter  of  acceptance,  he  used  the  following  language: 

"The  recent  legislation  of  Congress  respecting  domestic  slavery, 
derived  as  it  has  been  from  the  original  and  pure  fountain  of 
legitimate  political  power,  the  will  of  the  majority,  promises  ere 
long  to  allay  the  dangerous  excitement.  This  legislation  is  founded 
upon  principles  as  ancient  as  free  government  itself,  and,  in  ac- 
cordance with  them,  has  simply  declared  that  the  people  of  a 
Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall  decide  for  themselves  whether 
slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within  their  limits." 

Dr.  Hope  will  there  find  my  answer  to  the  question  he  pro- 
pounded to  me  before  I  commenced  speaking.  Of  course,  no  man 
wUl  consider  it  an  answer  who  is  outside  of  the  Democratic  or- 
ganization, bolts  Democratic  nominations,  and  indirectly  aids  to 
put  Abolitionists  into  power  over  Democrats.  But  whether  Dr. 
Hope  considers  it  an  answer  or  not,  every  fair-minded  man  will 
see  that  James  Buchanan  has  answered  the  question,  and  has 
asserted  that  the  people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State,  shall 


APPENDIX  A  285 

decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist  within 
their  limits.  I  answer  specifically  if  you  want  a  further  answer, 
and  say  that  while  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  as 
recorded  in  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice  Taney,  slaves  are  property 
like  all  other  property,  and  can  be  carried  into  any  Territory  of 
the  United  States  the  same  as  any  other  description  of  property, 
yet  when  you  get  them  there  they  are  subject  to  the  local  law  of 
the  Territory  just  like  all  other  property.  You  will  find  in  a  recent 
speech  delivered  by  that  able  and  eloquent  statesman,  Hon.  Jef- 
ferson Davis,  at  Bangor,  Maine,  that  he  took  the  same  view  of  this 
subject  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech.    He  there  said: 

"If  the  inhabitants  of  any  Territory  should  refuse  to  enact 
such  laws  and  poHce  regulations  as  would  give  security  to  their 
property  or  to  his,  it  would  be  rendered  more  or  less  valueless  in 
proportion  to  the  difficulties  of  holding  it  without  such  protection. 
In  the  case  of  property  in  the  labor  of  man,  or  what  is  usually 
called  slave  property,  the  insecurity  would  be  so  great  that  the 
owner  could  not  ordinarily  retain  it.  Therefore,  though  the  right 
would  remain,  the  remedy  being  withheld,  it  would  follow  that 
the  owner  would  be  practically  debarred,  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  from  taking  slave  property  into  a  Territory  where  the 
sense  of  the  inhabitants  was  opposed  to  its  introduction.  So  much 
for  the  oft-repeated  fallacy  of  forcing  slavery  upon  any  com- 
munity." 

You  wiU  also  find  that  the  distinguished  Speaker  of  the  present 
House  of  Representatives,  Hon,  Jas.  L.  Orr,  construed  the  Kansas 
and  Nebraska  biU  in  this  same  way  in  1856,  and  also  that  great 
intellect  of  the  South,  Alex.  H.  Stephens,  put  the  same  construc- 
tion upon  it  in  Congress  that  I  did  in  my  Freeport  speech.  The 
whole  South  are  rallying  to  the  support  of  the  doctrine  that  if  the 
people  of  a  Territory  want  slavery,  they  have  a  right  to  have  it, 
and  if  they  do  not  want  it,  that  no  power  on  earth  can  force  it 
upon  them.  I  hold  that  there  is  no  principle  on  earth  more  sacred 
to  all  the  friends  of  freedom  than  that  which  says  that  no  institu- 
tion, no  law,  no  constitution,  should  be  forced  on  an  unwilling 
people  contrary  to  their  wishes;  and  I  assert  that  the  Kansas  and 
Nebraska  bill  contains  that  principle.  It  is  the  great  principle 
contained  in  that  bill.  It  is  the  principle  on  which  James  Buchanan 
was  made  President.  Without  that  principle,  he  never  would  have 
been  made  President  of  the  United  States.  I  will  never  violate  or 
abandon  that  doctrine,  if  I  have  to  stand  alone.    I  have  resisted 


286  APPENDIX  A 

the  blandishments  and  threats  of  power  on  the  one  side,  and  se- 
duction on  the  other,  and  have  stood  immovably  for  that  principle, 
fighting  for  it  when  assailed  by  Northern  mobs,  or  threatened  by 
Southern  hostility.  I  have  defended  it  against  the  North  and  the 
South,  and  I  will  defend  it  against  whoever  assails  it,  and  I  will 
follow  it  wherever  its  logical  conclusions  lead  me.  I  say  to  you  that 
there  is  but  one  hope,  one  safety  for  this  country,  and  that  is  to 
stand  immovably  by  that  principle  which  declares  the  right  of 
each  State  and  each  Territory  to  decide  these  questions  for  them- 
selves. This  government  was  founded  on  that  principle,  and  must 
be  administered  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  was  founded. 

But  the  Abolition  party  really  thinks  that  under  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  the  negro  is  equal  to  the  white  man,  and  that 
negro  equality  is  an  inahenable  right  conferred  by  the  Almighty, 
and  hence  that  all  human  laws  in  violation  of  it  are  null  and  void. 
With  such  men  it  is  no  use  for  me  to  argue.  I  hold  that  the  signers 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  no  reference  to  negroes 
at  all  when  they  declared  all  men  to  be  created  equal.  They  did 
not  mean  negro,  nor  the  savage  Indians,  nor  the  Feejee  Islanders, 
nor  any  other  barbarous  race.  They  were  speaking  of  white  men. 
They  alluded  to  men  of  European  birth  and  European  descent, — 
to  white  men,  and  to  none  others, — when  they  declared  that  doc- 
trine. I  hold  that  this  government  was  established  on  the  white 
basis.  It  was  established  by  white  men  for  the  benefit  of  white 
men  and  their  posterity  forever,  and  should  be  administered  by 
white  men,  and  none  others.  But  it  does  not  follow  by  any  means, 
that  merely  because  the  negro  is  not  a  citizen,  and  merely  because 
he  is  not  our  equal,  that,  therefore,  he  should  be  a  slave.  On  the 
contrary,  it  does  follow  that  we  ought  to  extend  to  the  negro  race, 
and  to  all  other  dependent  races,  aU  the  rights,  all  the  privileges, 
and  all  the  immunities  which  they  can  exercise  consistently  with 
the  safety  of  society.  Humanity  requires  that  we  should  give 
them  all  these  privileges;  Christianity  commands  that  we  should 
extend  those  privileges  to  them.  The  question  then  arises,  What 
are  those  privileges,  and  what  is  the  nature  and  extent  of  them? 
My  answer  is,  that  that  is  a  question  which  each  State  must 
answer  for  itself.  We  in  Illinois  have  decided  it  for  ourselves.  We 
tried  slavery,  kept  it  up  for  twelve  years,  and  finding  that  it  was 
not  profitable,  we  abolished  it  for  that  reason,  and  became  a  Free 
State.  We  adopted  in  its  stead  the  policy  that  a  negro  in  this 
State  shall  not  be  a  slave  and  shall  not  be  a  citizen.    We  have 


APPENDIX  A  287 

a  right  to  adopt  that  policy.  For  my  part,  I  think  it  is  a  wise  and 
sound  pohcy  for  us.  You  in  Missouri  must  judge  for  yourselves 
whether  it  is  a  wise  policy  for  you.  If  you  choose  to  follow  our 
example,  very  good;  if  you  reject  it,  still  well, — it  is  your  business, 
not  ours.  So  with  Kentucky.  Let  Kentucky  adopt  a  pohcy  to 
suit  herself.  If  we  do  not  like  it,  we  will  keep  away  from  it;  and 
if  she  does  not  hke  ours,  let  her  stay  at  home,  mind  her  own  busi- 
ness, and  let  us  alone.  If  the  people  of  all  the  States  will  act  on 
that  great  principle,  and  each  State  mind  its  own  business,  attend 
to  its  own  affairs,  take  care  of  its  own  negroes,  and  not  meddle 
with  its  neighbors,  then  there  will  be  peace  between  the  North 
and  South,  the  East  and  the  West,  throughout  the  whole  Union. 
Why  can  we  not  thus  have  peace?  Why  should  we  thus  allow 
a  sectional  party  to  agitate  this  country,  to  array  the  North  against 
the  South,  and  convert  us  into  enemies  instead  of  friends,  merely 
that  a  few  ambitious  men  may  ride  into  power  on  a  sectional 
hobby?  How  long  is  it  since  these  ambitious  Northern  men  wished 
for  a  sectional  organization?  Did  any  one  of  them  dream  of  a 
sectional  party  as  long  as  the  North  was  the  weaker  section  and  the 
South  the  stronger?  Then  all  were  opposed  to  sectional  parties; 
but  the  moment  the  North  obtained  the  majority  in  the  House 
and  Senate  by  the  admission  of  Cahfornia,  and  could  elect  a  Presi- 
dent without  the  aid  of  Southern  votes,  that  moment  ambitious 
Northern  men  formed  a  scheme  to  excite  the  North  against  the 
South,  and  make  the  people  be  governed  in  their  votes  by  geo- 
graphical lines,  thinking  that  the  North,  being  the  stronger  sec- 
tion, would  outvote  the  South,  and  consequently  they,  the  leaders, 
would  ride  into  office  on  a  sectional  hobby.  I  am  told  that  my 
hour  is  out.    It  was  very  short. 

MR.  LINCOLN'S  REPLY 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  have  been  somewhat,  in  my  own 
mind,  complimented  by  a  large  portion  of  Judge  Douglas's  speech, 
— I  mean  that  portion  which  he  devotes  to  the  controversy  be- 
tween himself  and  the  present  Administration.  This  is  the  seventh 
time  Judge  Douglas  and  myself  have  met  in  these  joint  discussions, 
and  he  has  been  gradually  improving  in  regard  to  his  war  with 
the  Administration.  At  Quincy,  day  before  yesterday,  he  was  a 
little  more  severe  upon  the  Administration  than  I  had  heard  him 
upon  any  occasion,  and  I  took  pains  to  compliment  him  for  it.    I 


288  APPENDIX  A 

then  told  him  to  "Give  it  to  them  with  all  the  power  he  had"; 
and  as  some  of  them  were  present,  I  told  them  I  would  be  very- 
much  obliged  if  they  would  give  it  to  him  in  about  the  same  way. 
I  take  it  he  has  now  vastly  improved  upon  the  attack  he  made 
then  upon  the  Administration.  I  flatter  myself  he  has  really  taken 
my  advice  on  this  subject.  All  I  can  say  now  is  to  recommend 
to  him  and  to  them  what  I  then  commended, — to  prosecute  the 
war  against  one  another  in  the  most  vigorous  manner.  I  say  to 
them  again:    "Go  it,  husband! — Go  it,  bear!" 

There  is  one  other  thing  I  will  mention  before  I  leave  this  branch 
of  the  discussion, — although  I  do  not  consider  it  much  of  my 
business,  anyway.  I  refer  to  that  part  of  the  Judge's  remarks 
where  he  undertakes  to  involve  Mr.  Buchanan  in  an  inconsistency. 
He  reads  something  from  Mr.  Buchanan,  from  which  he  under- 
takes to  involve  him  in  an  inconsistency;  and  he  gets  something 
of  a  cheer  for  having  done  so.  I  would  only  remind  the  Judge  that 
while  he  is  very  valiantly  fighting  for  the  Nebraska  bill  and  the 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  it  has  been  but  a  little  while 
since  he  was  the  valiant  advocate  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
I  want  to  know  if  Buchanan  has  not  as  much  right  to  be  incon- 
sistent as  Douglas  has?  Has  Douglas  the  exclusive  right,  in  this 
country,  of  being  on  all  sides  of  all  questions?  Is  nobody  allowed 
that  high  privilege  but  himseK?  Is  he  to  have  an  entire  monopoly 
on  that  subject? 

So  far  as  Judge  Douglas  addressed  his  speech  to  me,  or  so  far 
as  it  was  about  me,  it  is  my  business  to  pay  some  attention  to  it. 
I  have  heard  the  Judge  state  two  or  three  times  what  he  has  stated 
to-day, — that  in  a  speech  which  I  made  at  Springfield,  Illinois, 
I  had  in  a  very  especial  manner  complained  that  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  decided  that  a  negro  could  never 
be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  I  have  omitted  by  some  accident 
heretofore  to  analyze  this  statement,  and  it  is  required  of  me  to 
notice  it  now.  In  point  of  fact  it  is  untrue.  I  never  have  com- 
plained especially  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  because  it  held  that  a 
negro  could  not  be  a  citizen,  and  the  Judge  is  always  wrong  when 
he  says  I  ever  did  so  complain  of  it.  I  have  the  speech  here,  and 
I  will  thank  him  or  any  of  his  friends  to  show  where  I  said  that  a 
negro  should  be  a  citizen,  and  complained  especially  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision  because  it  declared  he  could  not  be  one.  I  have 
done  no  such  thing;  and  Judge  Douglas,  so  persistently  insisting 
that  I  have  done  so,  has  strongly  impressed  me  with  the  belief 


APPENDIX  A  289 

of  a  predetermination  on  his  part  to  misrepresent  me.  He  could 
not  get  his  foundation  for  insisting  that  I  was  in  favor  of  this  negro 
equality  anywhere  else  as  well  as  he  could  by  assuming  that  untrue 
proposition.  Let  me  tell  this  audience  what  is  true  in  regard  to 
that  matter;  and  the  means  by  which  they  may  correct  me  if  I 
do  not  tell  them  truly  is  by  a  recurrence  to  the  speech  itself.  I 
spoke  of  the  Dred  Scott  decision  in  my  Springfield  speech,  and  I 
was  then  endeavoring  to  prove  that  the  Dred  Scott  decision  was 
a  portion  of  a  system  or  scheme  to  make  slavery  national  in  this 
country.  I  pointed  out  what  things  had  been  decided  by  the 
court.  I  mentioned  as  a  fact  that  they  had  decided  that  a  negro 
could  not  be  a  citizen;  that  they  had  done  so,  as  I  supposed,  to 
deprive  the  negro,  under  all  circumstances,  of  the  remotest  possi- 
bility of  ever  becoming  a  citizen  and  claiming  the  rights  of  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  under  a  certain  clause  of  the  Constitution. 
I  stated  that,  without  making  any  complaint  of  it  at  all.  I  then 
went  on  and  stated  the  other  points  decided  in  the  case;  namely, 
that  the  bringing  of  a  negro  into  the  State  of  Illinois  and  holding 
him  in  slavery  for  two  years  here  was  a  matter  in  regard  to  which 
they  would  not  decide  whether  it  would  make  him  free  or  not; 
that  they  decided  the  further  point  that  taking  him  into  a  United 
States  Territory  where  slavery  was  prohibited  by  Act  of  Congress 
did  not  make  him  free,  because  that  Act  of  Congress,  as  they  held, 
was  unconstitutional.  I  mentioned  these  three  things  as  making 
up  the  points  decided  in  that  case.  I  mentioned  them  in  a  lump, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  introduction  of  the  Nebraska  bill, 
and  the  amendment  of  Chase,  offered  at  the  time,  declaratory  of 
the  right  of  the  people  of  the  Territories  to  exclude  slavery,  which 
was  voted  down  by  the  friends  of  the  bill.  I  mentioned  all  these 
things  together,  as  evidence  tending  to  prove  a  combination  and 
conspiracy  to  make  the  institution  of  slavery  national.  In  that 
connection  and  in  that  way  I  mentioned  the  decision  on  the  point 
that  a  negro  could  not  be  a  citizen,  and  in  no  other  connection. 

Out  of  this  Judge  Douglas  builds  up  his  beautiful  fabrication 
of  my  purpose  to  introduce  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality 
between  the  white  and  black  races.  His  assertion  that  I  made  an 
"especial  objection"  (that  is  his  exact  language)  to  the  decision 
on  this  account,  is  untrue  in  point  of  fact. 

Now,  while  I  am  upon  this  subject,  and  as  Henry  Clay  has  been 
alluded  to,  I  desire  to  place  myself,  in  connection  with  Mr.  Clay, 
as  nearly  right  before  this  people  as  may  be.    I  am  quite  aware 


290  APPENDIX  A 

what  the  Judge's  object  is  here  by  all  these  allusions.  He  knows 
that  we  are  before  an  audience  having  strong  sympathies  south- 
ward, by  relationship,  place  of  birth,  and  so  on.  He  desires  to 
place  me  in  an  extremely  Abolition  attitude.  He  read  upon  a 
former  occasion,  and  alludes,  without  reading,  to-day  to  a  portion 
of  a  speech  which  I  delivered  in  Chicago.  In  his  quotations  from 
that  speech,  as  he  has  made  them  upon  former  occasions,  the  ex- 
tracts were  taken  in  such  a  way  as,  I  suppose,  brings  them  within 
the  definition  of  what  is  called  garbling, — taking  portions  of  a 
speech  which,  when  taken  by  themselves,  do  not  present  the  entire 
sense  of  the  speaker  as  expressed  at  the  time.  I  propose,  therefore, 
out  of  that  same  speech,  to  show  how  one  portion  of  it  which  he 
skipped  over  (taking  an  extract  before  and  an  extract  after)  will 
give  a  different  idea,  and  the  true  idea  I  intended  to  convey.  It 
will  take  me  some  little  time  to  read  it,  but  I  believe  I  will  occupy 
the  time  that  way. 

You  have  heard  him  frequently  allude  to  my  controversy  with 
him  in  regard  to  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  I  confess  that 
I  have  had  a  struggle  with  Judge  Douglas  on  that  matter,  and  I 
will  try  briefly  to  place  myself  right  in  regard  to  it  on  this  occasion. 
I  said — and  it  is  between  the  extracts  Judge  Douglas  has  taken 
from  this  speech,  and  put  in  his  published  speeches: 

"It  may  be  argued  that  there  are  certain  conditions  that  make 
necessities  and  impose  them  upon  us,  and  to  the  extent  that  a 
necessity  is  imposed  upon  a  man  he  must  submit  to  it.  I  think 
that  was  the  condition  in  which  we  found  ourselves  when  we  es- 
tablished this  government.  We  had  slaves  among  us,  we  could 
not  get  our  Constitution  unless  we  permitted  them  to  remain  in 
slavery,  we  could  not  secure  the  good  we  did  secure  if  we  grasped 
for  more;  and  having  by  necessity  submitted  to  that  much,  it 
does  not  destroy  the  principle  that  is  the  charter  of  our  liberties. 
Let  the  charter  remain  as  our  standard." 

Now,  I  have  upon  all  occasions  declared  as  strongly  as  Judge 
Douglas  against  the  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  existing  in- 
stitution of  slavery.  You  hear  me  read  it  from  the  same  speech 
from  which  he  takes  garbled  extracts  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
upon  me  a  disposition  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery, 
and  establish  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  between  negroes 
and  white  people. 

Allow  me  while  upon  this  subject  briefly  to  present  one  other 
extract  from  a  speech  of  mine,  more  than  a  year  ago,  at  Springfield, 


APPENDIX  A  291 

in  discussing  this  very  same  question,  soon  after  Judge  Douglas 
took  his  ground  that  negroes  were  not  included  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence: 

"I  think  the  authors  of  that  notable  instrument  intended  to 
include  all  men,  but  they  did  not  intend  to  declare  all  men  equal 
in  all  respects.  They  did  not  mean  to  say  all  men  were  equal  in 
color,  size,  intellect,  moral  development,  or  social  capacity.  They 
defined  with  tolerable  distinctness  in  what  they  did  consider  all 
men  created  equal, — equal  in  certain  inalienable  rights,  among 
which  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  This  they 
said,  and  this  they  meant.  They  did  not  mean  to  assert  the  ob- 
vious untruth  that  all  were  then  actually  enjoying  that  equality, 
or  yet  that  they  were  about  to  confer  it  immediately  upon  them. 
In  fact,  they  had  no  power  to  confer  such  a  boon.  They  meant 
simply  to  declare  the  right,  so  that  the  enforcement  of  it  might  fol- 
low as  fast  as  circumstances  should  permit. 

"They  meant  to  set  up  a  standard  maxim  for  free  society  which 
should  be  familiar  to  all, — constantly  looked  to,  constantly  labored 
for,  and  even,  though  never  perfectly  attained,  constantly  ap- 
proximated, and  thereby  constantly  spreading  and  deepening  its 
influence,  and  augmenting  the  happiness  and  value  of  life  to  all 
people,  of  all  colors,  everywhere." 

There  again  are  the  sentiments  I  have  expressed  in  regard  to 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  upon  a  former  occasion, — senti- 
ments which  have  been  put  in  print  and  read  wherever  anybody 
cared  to  know  what  so  humble  an  individual  as  myself  chose  to 
say  in  regard  to  it. 

At  Galesburgh,  the  other  day,  I  said,  in  answer  to  Judge  Doug- 
las, that  three  years  ago  there  never  had  been  a  man,  so  far  as  I 
knew  or  believed,  in  the  whole  world,  who  had  said  that  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence  did  not  include  negroes  in  the  term  "all 
men."  I  reassert  it  to-day.  I  assert  that  Judge  Douglas  and  all 
his  friends  may  search  the  whole  records  of  the  country,  and  it 
will  be  a  matter  of  great  astonishment  to  me  if  they  shall  be  able 
to  find  that  one  human  being  three  years  ago  had  ever  uttered  the 
astounding  sentiment  that  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  Declaration 
did  not  include  the  negro.  Do  not  let  me  be  misunderstood.  I 
know  that  more  than  three  years  ago  there  were  men  who,  finding 
this  assertion  constantly  in  the  way  of  their  schemes  to  bring 
about  the  ascendency  and  perpetuation  of  slavery,  denied  the 
truth  of  it.    I  know  that  Mr.  Calhoun  and  all  the  politicians  of  his 


292  APPENDIX  A 

school  denied  the  truth  of  the  Declaration.  I  know  that  it  ran 
along  in  the  mouth  of  some  Southern  men  for  a  period  of  years, 
ending  at  last  in  that  shameful,  though  rather  forcible,  declaration 
of  Pettit  of  Indiana,  upon  the  floor  of  the  United  States  Senate, 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  in  that  respect  "a  self- 
evident  lie,"  rather  than  a  self-evident  truth.  But  I  say,  with  a 
perfect  knowledge  of  all  this  hawking  at  the  Declaration  without 
directly  attacking  it,  that  three  years  ago  there  never  had  lived  a 
man  who  had  ventured  to  assail  it  in  the  sneaking  way  of  pretend- 
ing to  believe  it,  and  then  asserting  it  did  not  include  the  negro. 
I  beUeve  the  first  man  who  ever  said  it  was  Chief  Justice  Taney 
in  the  Dred  Scott  case,  and  the  next  to  him  was  our  friend  Stephen 
A.  Douglas.  And  now  it  has  become  the  catchword  of  the  entire 
party.  I  would  like  to  call  upon  his  friends  everywhere  to  consider 
how  they  have  come  in  so  short  a  time  to  view  this  matter  in  a 
way  so  entirely  different  from  their  former  belief;  to  ask  whether 
they  are  not  being  borne  along  by  an  irresistible  current, — whither, 
they  know  not. 

In  answer  to  my  proposition  at  Galesburgh  last  week,  I  see  that 
some  man  in  Chicago,  has  got  up  a  letter,  addressed  to  the  Chicago 
"Times,"  to  show,  as  he  professes,  that  somebody  had  said  so 
before;  and  he  signs  himself  "An  Old  Line  Whig,"  if  I  remember 
correctly.  In  the  first  place,  I  would  say  he  ivas  not  an  old  line 
Whig.  I  am  somewhat  acquainted  with  old  line  Whigs  from  the 
origin  to  the  end  of  that  party;  I  became  pretty  well  acquainted 
with  them,  and  I  know  they  always  had  some  sense,  whatever 
else  you  could  ascribe  to  them.  I  know  there  never  was  one  who 
had  not  more  sense  than  to  try  to  show  by  the  evidence  he  pro- 
duces that  some  man  had,  prior  to  the  time  I  named,  said  that 
negroes  were  not  included  in  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence.  What  is  the  evidence  he  produces?  I  will 
bring  forward  his  evidence,  and  let  you  see  what  he  offers  by  way 
of  showing  that  somebody  more  than  three  years  ago  had  said 
negroes  were  not  included  in  the  Declaration.  He  brings  forward 
part  of  a  speech  from  Henry  Clay, — the  part  of  the  speech  of  Henry 
Clay  which  I  used  to  bring  forward  to  prove  precisely  the  con- 
trary. I  guess  we  are  surrounded  to  some  extent  to-day  by  the 
old  friends  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  they  will  be  glad  to  hear  anything 
from  that  authority.  While  he  was  in  Indiana  a  man  presented  a 
petition  to  liberate  his  negroes,  and  he  (Mr.  Clay)  made  a  speech 
in  answer  to  it,  which  I  suppose  he  carefully  wrote  out  himself 


APPENDIX  A  293 

and  caused  to  be  published.  I  have  before  me  an  extract  from 
that  speech  which  constitutes  the  evidence  this  pretended  "Old 
Line  Whig"  at  Chicago  brought  forward  to  show  that  Mr.  Clay 
didn't  suppose  the  negro  was  included  in  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence.   Hear  what  Mr.  Clay  said: 

"And  what  is  the  foundation  of  this  appeal  to  me  in  Indiana 
to  liberate  the  slaves  under  my  care  in  Kentucky?  It  is  a  general 
declaration  in  the  act  announcing  to  the  world  the  independence 
of  the  thirteen  American  colonies,  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 
Now,  as  an  abstract  principle,  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  that 
declaration;  and  it  is  desirable,  in  the  original  construction  of  society 
and  in  organized  societies,  to  keep  it  in  view  as  a  great  fundamental 
principle.  But,  then,  I  apprehend  that  in  no  society  that  ever 
did  exist,  or  ever  shall  be  formed,  was  or  can  the  equality  asserted 
among  the  members  of  the  human  race  be  practically  enforced 
and  carried  out.  There  are  portions,  large  portions, — women, 
minors,  insane,  culprits,  transient  sojourners, — that  will  always 
probably  remain  subject  to  the  government  of  another  portion  of 
the  community. 

"That  declaration,  whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  its  import, 
was  made  by  the  delegations  of  the  thirteen  States.  In  most  of 
them  slavery  existed,  and  had  long  existed,  and  was  established 
by  law.  It  was  introduced  and  forced  upon  the  colonies  by  the 
paramount  law  of  England.  Do  you  believe  that  in  making  that 
declaration  the  States  that  concurred  in  it  intended  that  it  should 
be  tortured  into  a  virtual  emancipation  of  all  the  slaves  within  their 
respective  limits?  Would  Virginia  and  other  Southern  States 
have  ever  united  in  a  declaration  which  was  to  be  interpreted  into 
an  abolition  of  slavery  among  them?  Did  any  one  of  the  thirteen 
colonies  entertain  such  a  design  or  expectation?  To  impute  such 
a  secret  and  unavowed  purpose,  would  be  to  charge  a  political 
fraud  upon  the  noblest  band  of  patriots  that  ever  assembled  in 
council, — a  fraud  upon  the  Confederacy  of  the  Revolution;  a  fraud 
upon  the  union  of  those  States  whose  Constitution  not  only  recog- 
nized the  lawfulness  of  slavery,  but  permitted  the  importation  of 
slaves  from  Africa  until  the  year  180S." 

This  is  the  entire  quotation  brought  forward  to  prove  that 
somebody  previous  to  three  years  ago  had  said  the  negro  was  not 
included  in  the  term  "all  men"  in  the  Declaration.  Hov/  does  it 
do  so?  In  what  way  has  it  a  tendency  to  prove  that?  Mr.  Clay 
says  it  is  true  as  an  abstract  principle  that  all  men  are  created  equal, 


294  APPENDIX  A 

but  that  we  cannot  practically  apply  it  in  all  cases.  He  illustrates 
this  by  bringing  forward  the  cases  of  females,  minors,  and  insane 
persons,  with  whom  it  cannot  be  enforced;  but  he  says  it  is  true 
as  an  abstract  principle  in  the  organization  of  society  as  well  as  in 
organized  society  and  it  should  be  kept  in  view  as  a  fundamental 
principle.  Let  me  read  a  few  words  more  before  I  add  some  com- 
ments of  my  own.    Mr.  Clay  says,  a  little  further  on: 

"I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the  institu- 
tion of  slavery.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and  deeply  lament 
that  we  have  derived  it  from  the  parental  government  and  from 
our  ancestors.  But  here  they  are,  and  the  question  is,  How  can 
they  be  best  dealt  with?  If  a  state  of  nature  existed,  and  we  were 
about  to  lay  the  foundations  of  society,  no  man  would  be  more 
strongly  opposed  than  I  should  he  to  incorporate  the  institution  of 
slavery  among  its  elements." 

Now,  here  in  this  same  book,  in  this  same  speech,  in  this  same 
extract,  brought  forward  to  prove  that  Mr.  Clay  held  that  the 
negro  was  not  included  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  is  no 
such  statement  on  his  part,  but  the  declaration  that  it  is  a  great 
fundamental  truth  which  should  be  constantly  kept  in  view  in  the 
organization  of  society  and  in  societies  already  organized.  But 
if  I  say  a  word  about  it;  if  I  attempt,  as  Mr.  Clay  said  all  good 
men  ought  to  do,  to  keep  it  in  view;  if,  in  this  "organized  society," 
I  ask  to  have  the  public  eye  turned  upon  it;  if  I  ask,  in  relation 
to  the  organization  of  new  Territories,  that  the  public  eye  should 
be  turned  upon  it, — forthwith  I  am  vilified  as  you  hear  me  to-day. 
What  have  I  done  that  I  have  not  the  license  of  Henry  Clay's 
illustrious  example  here  in  doing?  Have  I  done  aught  that  I  have 
not  his  authority  for,  while  maintaining  that  in  organizing  new 
Territories  and  societies,  this  fundamental  principle  should  be 
regarded,  and  in  organized  society  holding  it  up  to  the  public 
view  and  recognizing  what  he  recognized  as  the  great  principle 
of  free  government? 

And  when  this  new  principle — this  new  proposition  that  no 
human  being  ever  thought  of  three  years  ago — is  brought  forward, 
/  combat  it  as  having  an  evil  tendency,  if  not  an  evil  design.  I  com- 
bat it  as  having  a  tendency  to  dehumanize  the  negro,  to  take 
away  from  him  the  right  of  ever  striving  to  be  a  man.  I  combat 
it  as  being  one  of  the  thousand  things  constantly  done  in  these 
days  to  prepare  the  public  mind  to  make  property,  and  nothing 
but  property,  of  the  negro  in  all  the  States  of  this  Union. 


APPENDIX  A  295 

But  there  is  a  point  that  I  wish,  before  leaving  this  part  of  the 
discussion,  to  ask  attention  to.  I  have  read  and  I  repeat  the  words 
of  Henry  Clay: 

"I  desire  no  concealment  of  my  opinions  in  regard  to  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery.  I  look  upon  it  as  a  great  evil,  and  deeply 
lament  that  we  have  derived  it  from  the  parental  government 
and  from  our  ancestors.  I  wish  every  slave  in  the  United  States 
was  in  the  country  of  his  ancestors.  But  there  they  are;  the  ques- 
tion is,  How  can  they  best  be  dealt  with?  If  a  state  of  nature 
existed,  and  we  were  about  to  lay  the  foundations  of  society,  no 
man  would  be  more  strongly  opposed  than  I  should  be  to  incor- 
porate the  institution  of  slavery  among  its  elements." 

The  principle  upon  which  I  have  insisted  in  this  canvass  is  in 
relation  to  laying  the  foundations  of  new  societies.  I  have  never 
sought  to  apply  these  principles  to  the  old  States  for  the  purpose 
of  abolishing  slavery  in  those  States.  It  is  nothing  but  a  miserable 
perversion  of  what  I  have  said,  to  assume  that  I  have  declared 
Missouri,  or  any  other  Slave  State,  shall  emancipate  her  slaves; 
I  have  proposed  no  such  thing.  But  when  Mr.  Clay  says  that  in 
laying  the  foundations  of  societies  in  our  Territories  where  it 
does  not  exist,  he  would  be  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery 
as  an  element,  I  insist  that  we  have  his  warrant — his  license — 
for  insisting  upon  the  exclusion  of  that  element  which  he  declared 
in  such  strong  and  emphatic  language  was  most  hateful  to 
him. 

Judge  Douglas  has  again  referred  to  a  Springfield  speech  in 
which  I  said  "a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand."  The 
Judge  has  so  often  made  the  entire  quotation  from  that  speech 
that  I  can  make  it  from  memory.    I  used  this  language: 

"We  are  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  initiated 
with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting  an  end 
to  the  slavery  agitation.  Under  the  operation  of  this  policy,  that 
agitation  has  not  only  not  ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented. 
In  my  opinion  it  will  not  cease  until  a  crisis  shall  have  been  reached 
and  passed.  'A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand.'  I 
believe  this  government  cannot  endure  permanently,  half  slave 
and  half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  house  to  fall,  but  I  do  expect 
it  will  cease  to  be  divided.  It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all 
the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of  slavery  will  arrest  the  further 
spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the  public  mind  shall  rest  in  the 
belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates 


296  APPENDIX  A 

will  push  it  forward  till  it  shall  become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States, 
— old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as  South." 

That  extract  and  the  sentiments  expressed  in  it  have  been  ex- 
tremely offensive  to  Judge  Douglas.  He  has  warred  upon  them 
as  Satan  wars  upon  the  Bible.  His  perversions  upon  it  are  endless. 
Here  now  are  my  views  upon  it  in  brief. 

I  said  we  were  now  far  into  the  fifth  year  since  a  policy  was  ini- 
tiated with  the  avowed  object  and  confident  promise  of  putting 
an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation.  Is  it  not  so?  When  that  Nebraska 
bill  was  brought  forward  four  years  ago  last  January,  was  it  not 
for  the  "  avowed  object "  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation? 
We  were  to  have  no  more  agitation  in  Congress;  it  was  all  to  be 
banished  to  the  Territories.  By  the  way,  I  will  remark  here  that, 
as  Judge  Douglas  is  very  fond  of  comphmenting  Mr.  Crittenden 
in  these  days,  Mr.  Crittenden  has  said  there  was  a  falsehood  in  that 
whole  business,  for  there  was  no  slavery  agitation  at  that  time  to 
allay.  We  were  for  a  little  while  quiet  on  the  troublesome  thing, 
and  that  very  allaying  plaster  of  Judge  Douglas  stirred  it  up 
again.  But  was  it  not  understood  or  intimated  with  the  "  confident 
promise"  of  putting  an  end  to  the  slavery  agitation?  Surely  it 
was.  In  every  speech  you  heard  Judge  Douglas  make,  until  he 
got  into  this  "imbroglio,"  as  they  call  it,  with  the  Administration 
about  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  every  speech  on  that  Nebraska 
bill  was  full  of  his  felicitations  that  we  were  just  at  the  end  of  the 
slavery  agitation.  The  last  tip  of  the  last  joint  of  the  old  serpent's 
tail  was  just  drawing  out  of  view.  But  has  it  proved  so?  I  have 
asserted  that  under  that  policy  that  agitation  "has  not  only  not 
ceased,  but  has  constantly  augmented."  When  was  there  ever  a 
greater  agitation  in  Congress  than  last  winter?  When  was  it  as 
great  in  the  country  as  to-day? 

There  was  a  collateral  object  in  the  introduction  of  that  Ne- 
braska pohcy,  which  was  to  clothe  the  people  of  the  Territories 
with  a  superior  degree  of  self-government,  beyond  what  they  had 
ever  had  before.  The  first  object  and  the  main  one  of  conferring 
upon  the  people  a  higher  degree  of  "self-government"  is  a  question 
of  fact  to  be  determined  by  you  in  answer  to  a  single  question. 
Have  you  ever  heard  or  known  of  a  people  anywhere  on  earth  who 
had  as  little  to  do  as,  in  the  first  instance  of  its  use,  the  people  of 
Kansas  had  with  this  same  right  of  "self-government"?  In  its 
main  policy  and  in  its  collateral  object,  it  has  been  nothing  but  a 
living,  creeping  lie  from  the  time  of  its  introduction  till  to-day. 


APPENDIX  A  297 

I  have  intimated  that  I  thought  the  agitation  wo7ild  not  cease  until 
a  crisis  should  have  been  reached  and  passed.  I  have  stated  in  what 
way  I  thought  it  would  be  reached  and  passed.  I  have  said  that 
it  might  go  one  way  or  the  other.  We  might,  by  arresting  the 
further  spread  of  it,  and  placing  it  where  the  fathers  originally 
placed  it,  put  it  where  the  public  mind  should  rest  in  the  belief 
that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  Thus  the  agita- 
tion may  cease.  It  may  be  pushed  forward  until  it  shall  become 
alike  lawful  in  all  the  States,  old  as  well  as  new,  North  as  well  as 
South.  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat,  my  wish  is  that  the  further 
spread  of  it  may  be  arrested,  and  that  it  may  be  placed  where  the 
public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of  ulti- 
mate extinction.  I  have  expressed  that  as  my  wish.  I  entertain 
the  opinion,  upon  evidence  sufficient  to  my  mind,  that  the  fathers 
of  this  government  placed  that  institution  where  the  public  mind 
did  rest  in  the  beUef  that  it  was  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction. 
Let  me  ask  why  they  made  provision  that  the  source  of  slavery — 
the  African  slave-trade — should  be  cut  off  at  the  end  of  twenty 
years?  Why  did  they  make  provision  that  in  all  the  new  territory 
we  owned  at  that  time  slavery  should  be  forever  inhibited?  Why 
stop  its  spread  in  one  direction,  and  cut  off  its  source  in  another, 
if  they  did  not  look  to  its  being  placed  in  the  course  of  its  ultimate 
extinction? 

Again:  the  institution  of  slavery  is  only  mentioned  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  two  or  three  times,  and  in  neither 
of  these  cases  does  the  word  "slavery"  or  "negro  race"  occur; 
but  covert  language  is  used  each  time,  and  for  a  purpose  full  of 
significance.  What  is  the  language  in  regard  to  the  prohibition 
of  the  African  slave-trade?  It  runs  in  about  this  way:  "The  mi- 
gration or  importation  of  such  persons  as  any  of  the  States  now 
existing  shall  think  proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Congress  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  eight." 

The  next  allusion  in  the  Constitution  to  the  question  of  slavery 
and  the  black  race  is  on  the  subject  of  the  basis  of  representation, 
and  there  the  language  used  is: 

"Representatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  States  which  may  be  included  within  this  Union,  ac- 
cording to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be  determined  by 
adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons,  including  those  bound 
to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  excluding  Indians  not  taxed, — 
three-fifths  of  all  other  persons." 


298  APPENDIX  A 

It  says  "persons,"  not  slaves,  not  negroes;  but  this  "three- 
fifths"  can  be  applied  to  no  other  class  among  us  than  the 
negroes. 

Lastly,  in  the  provision  for  the  reclamation  of  fugitive  slaves, 
it  is  said:  "No  person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  State,  under 
the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into  another,  shall  in  consequence  of 
any  law  or  regulation  therein  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the  party  to  whom 
such  service  or  labor  may  be  due."  There  again  there  is  no 
mention  of  the  word  "negro"  or  of  slavery.  In  all  three  of  these 
places,  being  the  only  allusions  to  slavery  in  the  instrument,  covert 
language  is  used.  Language  is  used  not  suggesting  that  slavery 
existed  or  that  the  black  race  were  among  us.  And  I  understand 
the  contemporaneous  history  of  those  times  to  be  that  covert 
language  was  used  with  a  purpose,  and  that  purpose  was  that  in 
our  Constitution,  which  it  was  hoped  and  is  still  hoped  will  endure 
forever, — ^when  it  should  be  read  by  intelligent  and  patriotic 
men,  after  the  institution  of  slavery  had  passed  from  amongst  us, — 
there  should  be  nothing  on  the  face  of  the  great  charter  of  liberty 
suggesting  that  such  a  thing  as  negro  slavery  had  ever  existed 
among  us.  This  is  part  of  the  evidence  that  the  fathers  of  the 
government  expected  and  intended  the  institution  of  slavery  to 
come  to  an  end.  They  expected  and  intended  that  it  should  be 
in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  And  when  I  say  that  I  desire 
to  see  the  further  spread  of  it  arrested,  I  only  say  I  desire  to  see 
that  done  which  the  fathers  have  lirst  done.  When  I  say  I  desire 
to  see  it  placed  where  the  public  mind  will  rest  in  the  belief  that 
it  is  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction,  I  only  say  I  desire  to  see 
it  placed  where  they  placed  it.  It  is  not  true  that  our  fathers,  as 
Judge  Douglas  assumes,  made  this  government  part  slave  and 
part  free.  Understand  the  sense  in  which  he  puts  it.  He  assumes 
that  slavery  is  a  rightful  thing  within  itself, — was  introduced  by 
the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  The  exact  truth  is,  that  they 
found  the  institution  existing  among  us,  and  they  left  it  as  they 
found  it.  But  in  making  the  government  they  left  this  institution 
with  many  clear  marks  of  disapprobation  upon  it.  They  found 
slavery  among  them,  and  they  left  it  among  them  because  of  the 
difficulty — the  absolute  impossibility — of  its  immediate  removal. 
And  when  Judge  Douglas  asks  me  why  we  cannot  let  it  remain 
part  slave  and  part  free,  as  the  fathers  of  the  government  made  it, 
he  asks  a  question  based  upon  an  assumption  which  is  itself  a 


APPENDIX  A  299, 

falsehood;  and  I  turn  upon  him  and  ask  him  the  question,  when 
the  policy  that  the  fathers  of  the  government  had  adopted  in 
relation  to  this  element  among  us  was  the  best  policy  in  the  world, 
the  only  wise  policy,  the  only  policy  that  we  can  ever  safely  con- 
tinue upon,  that  will  ever  give  us  peace,  unless  this  dangerous  ele- 
ment masters  us  all  and  becomes  a  national  institution, — /  turn 
upon  him  and  ask  him  why  he  could  not  leave  it  alone.  I  turn  and 
ask  him  why  he  was  driven  to  the  necessity  of  introducing  a  new 
policy  in  regard  to  it.  He  has  himself  said  he  introduced  a  new 
policy.  He  said  so  in  his  speech  on  the  2  2d  of  March  of  the  present 
year,  1858.  I  ask  him  why  he  could  not  let  it  remain  where  our 
fathers  placed  it.  I  ask,  too,  of  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends 
why  we  shall  not  again  place  this  institution  upon  the  basis  on 
which  the  fathers  left  it.  I  ask  you,  when  he  infers  that  I  am  in 
favor  of  setting  the  Free  and  Slave  States  at  war,  when  the  insti- 
tution was  placed  in  that  attitude  by  those  who  made  the  Consti- 
tution, did  they  make  any  war?  If  we  had  no  war  out  of  it  when 
thus  placed,  wherein  is  the  ground  of  belief  that  we  shall  have  war 
out  of  it  if  we  return  to  that  pohcy?  Have  we  had  any  peace 
upon  this  matter  springing  from  any  other  basis?  I  maintain 
that  we  have  not.  I  have  proposed  nothing  more  than  a  return 
to  the  policy  of  the  fathers. 

I  confess,  when  I  propose  a  certain  measure  of  policy,  it  is  not 
enough  for  me  that  I  do  not  intend  anything  evil  in  the  result, 
but  it  is  incumbent  on  me  to  show  that  it  has  not  a  tendency  to 
that  result.  I  have  met  Judge  Douglas  in  that  point  of  view.  I 
have  not  only  made  the  declaration  that  I  do  not  mean  to  produce 
a  conflict  between  the  States,  but  I  have  tried  to  show  by  fair 
reasoning,  and  I  think  I  have  shown  to  the  minds  of  fair  men, 
that  I  propose  nothing  but  what  has  a  most  peaceful  tendency. 
The  quotation  that  I  happened  to  make  in  that  Springfield  speech, 
that  "  a  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand,"  and  which  has 
proved  so  offensive  to  the  Judge,  was  part  and  parcel  of  the  same 
thing.  He  tries  to  show  that  variety  in  the  domestic  institutions 
of  the  different  States  is  necessary  and  indispensable.  I  do  not 
dispute  it.  I  have  no  controversy  with  Judge  Douglas  about  that. 
I  shall  very  readily  agree  with  him  that  it  would  be  foolish  for  us 
to  insist  upon  having  a  cranberry  law  here  in  Illinois,  where  we 
have  no  cranberries,  because  they  have  a  cranberry  law  in  Indiana, 
where  they  have  cranberries.  I  should  insist  that  it  would  be 
exceedingly  wrong  in  us  to  deny  to  Virginia  the  right  to  enact 


300  APPENDIX  A 

oyster  laws,  where  they  have  oysters,  because  we  want  no  such 
laws  here.  I  understand,  I  hope,  quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas 
or  anybody  else,  that  the  variety  in  the  soil  and  climate  and  face 
of  the  country,  and  consequent  variety  in  the  industrial  pursuits 
and  productions  of  a  country,  require  systems  of  law  conforming 
to  this  variety  in  the  natural  features  of  the  country.  I  under- 
stand quite  as  well  as  Judge  Douglas  that  if  we  here  raise  a  barrel 
of  flour  more  than  we  want,  and  the  Louisianians  raise  a  barrel  of 
sugar  more  than  they  want,  it  is  of  mutual  advantage  to  exchange. 
That  produces  commerce,  brings  us  together,  and  makes  us  better 
friends.  We  like  one  another  the  more  for  it.  And  I  understand 
as  well  as  Judge  Douglas,  or  anybody  else,  that  these  mutual 
accommodations  are  the  cements  which  bind  together  the  dififerent 
parts  of  this  Union;  that  instead  of  being  a  thing  to  "divide  the 
house," — figuratively  expressing  the  Union, — they  tend  to  sus- 
tain it;  they  are  the  props  of  the  house,  tending  always  to  hold 
it  up. 

But  when  I  have  admitted  all  this,  I  ask  if  there  is  any  parallel 
between  these  things  and  this  institution  of  slavery?  I  do  not 
see  that  there  is  any  parallel  at  all  between  them.  Consider  it. 
When  have  we  had  any  difficulty  or  quarrel  amongst  ourselves 
about  the  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana,  or  the  oyster  laws  of  Vir- 
ginia, or  the  pine-lumber  laws  of  Maine,  or  the  fact  that  Louisiana 
produces  sugar,  and  Illinois  flour?  When  have  we  had  any  quar- 
rels over  these  things?  When  have  we  had  perfect  peace  in  regard 
to  this  thing  which  I  say  is  an  element  of  discord  in  this  Union? 
We  have  sometimes  had  peace,  but  when  was  it?  It  was  when 
the  institution  of  slavery  remained  quiet  where  it  was.  We  have 
had  difficulty  and  turmoil  whenever  it  has  made  a  struggle  to 
spread  itself  where  it  was  not.  I  ask,  then,  if  experience  docs  not 
speak  in  thunder-tones,  telling  us  that  the  policy  which  has  given 
peace  to  the  country  heretofore,  being  returned  to,  gives  the  great- 
est promise  of  peace  again.  You  may  say,  and  Judge  Douglas 
has  intimated  the  same  thing,  that  all  this  difficulty  in  regard  to 
the  institution  of  slavery  is  the  mere  agitation  of  office-seekers  and 
ambitious  Northern  pohticians.  He  thinks  we  want  to  get  "his 
place,"  I  suppose.  I  agree  that  there  are  office-seekers  amongst 
us.  The  Bible  says  somewhere  that  we  are  desperately  selfish. 
I  think  we  would  have  discovered  that  fact  without  the  Bible. 
I  do  not  claim  that  I  am  any  less  so  than  the  average  of  men,  but 
I  do  claim  that  I  am  not  more  selfish  than  Judge  Douglas. 


APPENDIX  A  301 

But  is  it  true  that  all  the  difficulty  and  agitation  we  have  in 
regard  to  this  institution  of  slavery  springs  from  office-seeking, 
from  the  mere  ambition  of  politicians?  Is  that  the  truth?  How 
many  times  have  we  had  danger  from  this  question?  Go  back  to 
the  day  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Go  back  to  the  Nullification 
question,  at  the  bottom  of  which  lay  this  same  slavery  question. 
Go  back  to  the  time  of  the  Annexation  of  Texas.  Go  back  to  the 
troubles  that  led  to  the  Compromise  of  1850.  You  will  find  that 
every  time,  with  the  single  exception  of  the  Nullification  question, 
they  sprung  from  an  endeavor  to  spread  this  institution.  There 
never  was  a  party  in  the  history  of  this  country,  and  there  prob- 
ably never  will  be,  of  sufiicient  strength  to  disturb  the  general 
peace  of  the  country.  Parties  themselves  may  be  divided  and 
quarrel  on  minor  questions,  yet  it  extends  not  beyond  the  parties 
themselves.  But  does  not  this  question  make  a  disturbance  out- 
side of  political  circles?  Does  it  not  enter  into  the  churches  and 
rend  them  asunder?  What  divided  the  great  Methodist  Church 
into  two  parts.  North  and  South?  What  has  raised  this  constant 
disturbance  in  every  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  that  meets? 
What  disturbed  the  Unitarian  Church  in  this  very  city  two  years 
ago?  What  has  jarred  and  shaken  the  great  American  Tract  Soci- 
ety recently,  not  yet  splitting  it,  but  sure  to  divide  it  in  the  end? 
Is  it  not  this  same  mighty,  deep-seated  power  that  somehow  oper- 
ates on  the  minds  of  men,  exciting  and  stirring  them  up  in  every 
avenue  of  society, — in  politics,  in  religion,  in  literature,  in  morals, 
in  all  the  manifold  relations  of  life?  Is  this  the  work  of  politicians? 
Is  that  irresistible  power,  which  for  fifty  years  has  shaken  the  gov- 
ernment and  agitated  the  people,  to  be  stilled  and  subdued  by 
pretending  that  it  is  an  exceedingly  simple  thing,  and  we  ought 
not  to  talk  about  it?  If  you  will  get  everybody  else  to  stop  talk- 
ing about  it,  I  assure  you  I  will  quit  before  they  have  half  done 
so.  But  where  is  the  philosophy  or  statesmanship  which  assumes 
that  you  can  quiet  that  disturbing  element  in  our  society  which 
has  disturbed  us  for  more  than  half  a  century,  which  has  been  the 
only  serious  danger  that  has  threatened  our  institutions, — I  say, 
where  is  the  philosophy  or  the  statesmanship  based  on  the  assump- 
tion that  we  are  to  quit  talking  about  it,  and  that  the  public 
mind  is  all  at  once  to  cease  being  agitated  by  it?  Yet  this  is  the 
policy  here  in  the  North  that  Douglas  is  advocating, — that  we 
are  to  care  nothing  about  it!  I  ask  you  if  it  is  not  a  false  phil- 
osophy.   Is  it  not  a  false  statesmanship  that  undertakes  to  build 


302  APPENDIX  A 

up  a  system  of  policy  upon  the  basis  of  c  xring  nothing  about  the 
very  thing  that  everybody  does  care  the  most  about? — a  thing  which 
all  experience  has  shown  we  care  a  very  great  deal  about? 

The  Judge  alludes  very  often  in  the  course  of  his  remarks  to 
the  exclusive  right  which  the  States  have  to  decide  the  whole 
thing  for  themselves.  I  agree  with  him  very  readily  that  the 
different  States  have  that  right.  He  is  but  fighting  a  man  of  straw 
when  he  assumes  that  I  am  contending  against  the  right  of  the 
States  to  do  as  they  please  about  it.  Our  controversy  with  him 
is  in  regard  to  the  new  Territories.  We  agree  that  when  the  States 
come  in  as  States  they  have  the  right  and  the  power  to  do  as  they 
please.  We  have  no  power  as  citizens  of  the  Free  States,  or  in 
our  Federal  capacity  as  members  of  the  Federal  Union  through 
the  General  Government,  to  disturb  slavery  in  the  States  where  it 
exists.  We  profess  constantly  that  we  have  no  more  inclination 
than  behef  in  the  power  of  the  government  to  disturb  it;  yet  we 
are  driven  constantly  to  defend  ourselves  from  the  assumption 
that  we  are  warring  upon  the  rights  of  the  States.  What  I  insist 
upon  is,  that  the  new  Territories  shall  be  kept  free  from  it  while 
in  the  Territorial  condition.  Judge  Douglas  assumes  that  we  have 
no  interest  in  them, — that  we  have  no  right  whatever  to  interfere, 
I  think  we  have  some  interest.  I  think  that  as  white  men  we  have. 
Do  we  not  wish  for  an  outlet  for  our  surplus  population,  if  I  may  so 
express  myself?  Do  w-e  not  feel  an  interest  in  getting  to  that 
outlet  with  such  institutions  as  we  would  like  to  have  prevail 
there?  If  yoii  go  to  the  Territory  opposed  to  slavery,  and  another 
man  comes  upon  the  same  ground  with  his  slave,  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  things  are  equal,  it  turns  out  that  he  has  the  equal 
right  all  his  way,  and  you  have  no  part  of  it  your  way.  If  he  goes 
in  and  makes  it  a  Slave  Territory,  and  by  consequence  a  Slave 
State,  is  it  not  time  that  those  who  desire  to  have  it  a  Free  State 
were  on  equal  ground?  Let  me  suggest  it  in  a  different  way.  How 
many  Democrats  are  there  about  here  ["A  thousand"]  who  have 
left  Slave  States  and  come  into  the  Free  State  of  Illinois  to  get 
rid  of  the  institution  of  slavery?  [Another  voice:  "A  thousand 
and  one."]  I  reckon  there  are  a  thousand  and  one.  I  will  ask  you, 
if  the  policy  you  are  now  advocating  had  prevailed  when  this 
country  was  in  a  Territorial  condition,  where  would  you  have 
gone  to  get  rid  of  it?  Where  would  you  have  found  your  Free 
State  or  Territory  to  go  to?  And  when  hereafter,  for  any  cause, 
the  people  in  this  place  skall  desire  to  find  new  homes,  if  they 


APPENDIX  A  303 

wish  to  be  rid  of  the  institution,  where  will  they  find  the  place  to 
go  to? 

Now,  irrespective  of  the  moral  aspect  of  this  question  as  to 
whether  there  is  a  right  or  wrong  in  enslaving  a  negro,  I  am  still 
in  favor  of  our  new  Territories  being  in  such  a  condition  that 
white  men  may  find  a  home, — may  find  some  spot  where  they  can 
better  their  condition;  where  they  can  settle  upon  new  soil  and 
better  their  condition  in  life.  I  am  in  favor  of  this,  not  merely 
(I  must  say  it  here  as  I  have  elsewhere)  for  our  own  people  who 
are  born  amongst  us,  but  as  an  outlet  ior  free  white  people  every- 
where, the  world  over, — in  which  Hans,  and  Baptiste,  and  Patrick, 
and  all  other  men  from  all  the  world,  may  find  new  homes  and 
better  their  conditions  in  life. 

I  have  stated  upon  former  occasions,  and  I  may  as  well  state 
again,  what  I  understand  to  be  the  real  issue  in  this  controversy 
between  Judge  Douglas  and  myself.  On  the  point  of  my  wanting 
to  make  war  between  the  Free  and  the  Slave  States,  there  has 
been  no  issue  between  us.  So,  too,  when  he  assumes  that  I  am 
in  favor  of  introducing  a  perfect  social  and  political  equality  be- 
tween the  white  and  black  races.  These  are  false  issues,  upon 
which  Judge  Douglas  has  tried  to  force  the  controversy.  There 
is  no  foundation  in  truth  for  the  charge  that  I  maintain  either  of 
these  propositions.  The  real  issue  in  this  controversy — the  one 
pressing  upon  every  mind — is  the  sentiment  on  the  part  of  one 
class  that  looks  upon  the  institution  of  slavery  as  a  wrong,  and 
of  another  class  that  does  not  look  upon  it  as  a  wrong.  The  senti- 
ment that  contemplates  the  institution  of  slavery  in  this  country 
as  a  wrong  is  the  sentiment  of  the  Republican  party.  It  is  the 
sentiment  around  which  all  their  actions,  all  their  arguments, 
circle,  from  which  all  their  propositions  radiate.  They  look  upon 
it  as  a  being  a  moral,  social,  and  political  wrong;  and  while  they 
contemplate  it  as  such,  they  nevertheless  have  due  regard  for  its 
actual  existence  among  us,  and  the  difificulties  of  getting  rid  of  it 
in  any  satisfactory  way  and  to  all  the  constitutional  obligations 
thrown  about  it.  Yet,  having  a  due  regard  for  these,  they  desire 
a  policy  in  regard  to  it  that  looks  to  its  not  creating  any  more 
danger.  They  insist  that  it  should,  as  far  as  may  be,  be  treated  as 
a  wrong;  and  one  of  the  methods  of  treating  it  as  a  wrong  is  to 
make  provision  that  it  shall  grow  no  larger.  They  also  desire  a 
policy  that  looks  to  a  peaceful  end  of  slavery  at  some  time,  as 
being  wrong.    These  are  the  views  they  entertain  in  regard  to  it 


304  APPENDIX  A 

as  I  understand  them;  and  all  their  sentiments,  all  their  arguments 
and  propositions,  are  brought  within  this  range.  I  have  said, 
and  I  repeat  it  here,  that  if  there  be  a  man  amongst  us  who  does 
not  think  that  the  institution  of  slavery  is  wrong  in  any  one  of 
the  aspects  of  which  I  have  spoken,  he  is  misplaced,  and  ought 
not  to  be  with  us.  And  if  there  be  a  man  amongst  us  who  is  so 
impatient  of  it  as  a  wrong  as  to  disregard  its  actual  presence 
amongst  us  and  the  difficulty  of  getting  rid  of  it  suddenly  in  a 
satisfactory  way,  and  to  disregard  the  constitutional  obligations 
thrown  about  it,  that  man  is  misplaced  if  he  is  on  our  platform. 
We  disclaim  sympathy  with  him  in  practical  action.  He  is  not 
placed  properly  with  us. 

On  this  subject  of  treating  it  as  a  wrong,  and  limiting  its  spread, 
let  me  say  a  word.  Has  anything  ever  threatened  the  existence 
of  this  Union  save  and  except  this  very  institution  of  slavery? 
What  is  it  that  we  hold  most  dear  amongst  us?  Our  own  liberty 
and  prosperity.  What  has  ever  threatened  our  hberty  and  pros- 
perity, save  and  except  this  institution  of  slavery?  If  this  is  true, 
how  do  you  propose  to  improve  the  condition  of  things  by  enlarg- 
ing slavery,— by  spreading  it  out  and  making  it  bigger?  You 
may  have  a  wen  or  cancer  upon  your  person,  and  not  be  able  to 
cut  it  out,  lest  you  bleed  to  death;  but  surely  it  is  no  way  to  cure 
it,  to  engraft  it  and  spread  it  over  your  whole  body.  That  is  no 
proper  way  of  treating  what  you  regard  a  wrong.  You  see  this 
peaceful  way  of  dealing  with  it  as  a  wrong, — restricting  the  spread 
of  it,  and  not  allowing  it  to  go  into  new  countries  where  it  has  not 
already  existed.  That  is  the  peaceful  way,  the  old-fashioned  way, 
the  way  in  which  the  fathers  themselves  set  us  the  example. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  have  said  there  is  a  sentiment  which  treats 
it  as  not  being  wrong.  That  is  the  Democratic  sentiment  of  this 
day.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  every  man  who  stands  within 
that  range  positively  asserts  that  it  is  right.  That  class  will  in- 
clude all  who  positively  assert  that  it  is  right,  and  all  who,  like 
Judge  Douglas,  treat  it  as  indifferent,  and  do  not  say  it  is  either 
right  or  wrong.  These  two  classes  of  men  fall  within  the  general 
class  of  those  who  do  not  look  upon  it  as  a  wrong.  And  if  there 
be  among  you  anybody  who  supposes  that  he,  as  a  Democrat,  can 
consider  hiniself  "as  much  opposed  to  slavery  as  anybody,"  I 
would  like  to  reason  with  him.  You  never  treat  it  as  a  wrong. 
What  other  thing  that  you  consider  as  a  wrong  do  you  deal  with 
as  you  deal  with  that?    Perhaps  you  say  it  is  wrong,  but  your  leader 


APPENDIX  A  305 

never  does,  and  you  quarrel  with  anybody  who  says  it  is  wrong.  Al- 
though you  pretend  to  say  so  yourself,  you  can  finxl  no  fit  place  to 
deal  with  it  as  a  wrong.  You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in  the 
Free  States,  because  it  is  not  here.  You  must  not  say  anything 
about  it  in  the  Slave  States,  because  it  is  there.  You  must  not 
say  anything  about  it  in  the  pulpit,  because  that  is  religion,  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it.  You  must  not  say  anything  about  it  in 
politics,  because  that  will  disturb  the  security  of  "my  place."  There 
is  no  place  to  talk  about  it  as  being  a  wrong,  although  you  say 
yourself  it  is  a  wrong.  But,  finally,  you  will  screw  yourself  up  to 
the  belief  that  if  the  people  of  the  Slave  States  should  adopt  a 
system  of  gradual  emancipation  on  the  slavery  question,  you  would 
be  in  favor  of  it.  You  would  be  in  favor  of  it.  You  say  that  is 
getting  it  in  the  right  place,  and  you  would  be  glad  to  see  it  suc- 
ceed. But  you  are  deceiving  yourself.  You  all  know  that  Frank 
Blair  and  Gratz  Brown,  down  there  in  St.  Louis,  undertook  to 
introduce  that  system  in  Missouri.  They  fought  as  valiantly  as 
they  could  for  the  system  of  gradual  emancipation  which  you  pre- 
tend you  would  be  glad  to  see  succeed.  Now,  I  will  bring  you  to 
the  test.  After  a  hard  fight  they  were  beaten,  and  when  the  news 
came  over  here,  you  threw  up  your  hats  and  hurrahed  for  Democ- 
racy. More  than  that,  take  all  the  argument  made  in  favor  of 
the  system  you  have  proposed,  and  it  carefully  excludes  the  idea 
that  there  is  anything  wrong  in  the  institution  of  slavery.  The 
arguments  to  sustain  that  policy  carefully  excluded  it.  Even  here 
to-day  you  heard  Judge  Douglas  quarrel  with  me  because  I  uttered 
a  wish  that  it  might  some  time  come  to  an  end.  Although  Henry 
Clay  could  say  he  wished  every  slave  in  the  United  States  was  in 
the  country  of  his  ancestors,  I  am  denounced  by  those  pretending 
to  respect  Henry  Clay  for  uttering  a  wish  that  it  might  some  time, 
in  some  peaceful  way,  come  to  an  end.  The  Democratic  policy  in 
regard  to  that  institution  will  not  tolerate  the  merest  breath,  the 
slightest  hint,  of  the  least  degree  of  wrong  about  it.  Try  it  by 
some  of  Judge  Douglas's  arguments.  He  says  he  "don't  care 
whether  it  is  voted  up  or  voted  down"  in  the  Territories.  I  do 
not  care  myself,  in  dealing  with  that  expression,  whether  it  is 
intended  to  be  expressive  of  his  individual  sentiments  on  the  sub- 
ject, or  only  of  the  national  policy  he  desires  to  have  established. 
It  is  alike  valuable  for  my  purpose.  Any  man  can  say  that  who 
does  not  see  anything  wrong  in  slavery;  but  no  man  can  logically 
say  it  who  does  see  a  wrong  in  it,  because  no  man  can  logically 


3o6  APPENDIX  A 

say  he  don't  care  whether  a  wrong  is  voted  up  or  voted  down.  He 
may  say  he  don't  care  whether  an  indifferent  thing  is  voted  up  or 
down,  but  he  must  logically  have  a  choice  between  a  right  thing 
and  a  wrong  thing.  He  contends  that  whatever  community  wants 
slaves  has  a  right  to  have  them.  So  they  have,  if  it  is  not  a  wrong. 
But  if  it  is  a  wrong,  he  cannot  say  people  have  a  right  to  do  wrong. 
He  says  that  upon  the  score  of  equality,  slaves  should  be  allowed 
to  go  in  a  new  Territory,  like  other  property.  This  is  strictly 
logical  if  there  is  no  difference  between  it  and  other  property.  If 
it  and  other  property  are  equal,  his  argument  is  entirely  logical. 
But  if  you  insist  that  one  is  wrong  and  the  other  right,  there  is  no 
use  to  institute  a  comparison  between  right  and  wrong.  You  may 
turn  over  everything  in  the  Democratic  policy  from  beginning 
to  end,  whether  in  the  shape  it  takes  on  the  statute  book,  in  the 
shape  it  takes  in  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  in  the  shape  it  takes  in 
conversation,  or  the  shape  it  takes  in  short  m.axim-like  arguments, 
— it  everywhere  carefully  excludes  the  idea  that  there  is  anything 
wrong  in  it. 

That  is  the  real  issue.  That  is  the  issue  that  will  continue  in 
this  country,  when  these  poor  tongues  of  Judge  Douglas  and 
myself  shall  be  silent.  It  is  the  eternal  struggle  between  these 
two  principles — right  and  wrong — throughout  the  world.  They 
are  the  two  principles  that  have  stood  face  to  face  from  the  be- 
ginning of  time,  and  will  ever  continue  to  struggle.  The  one  is 
the  common  right  of  humanity,  and  the  other  the  divine  right  of 
kings.  It  is  the  same  principle  in  whatever  shape  it  develops 
itself.  It  is  the  same  spirit  that  says:  "You  work  and  toil  and  earn 
bread,  and  I'll  eat  it."  No  matter  in  what  shape  it  comes,  whether 
from  the  mouth  of  a  king  who  seeks  to  bestride  the  people  of  his 
own  nation  and  Hve  by  the  fruit  of  their  labor,  or  from  one  race 
of  men  as  an  apology  for  enslaving  another  race,  it  is  the  same 
tyrannical  principle.  I  was  glad  to  express  my  gratitude  at  Quincy, 
and  I  re-express  it  here,  to  Judge  Douglas, — that  he  looks  to  no  end 
of  the  institution  of  slavery.  That  will  help  the  people  to  see  where 
the  struggle  really  is.  It  will  hereafter  place  with  us  all  men  who 
really  do  wish  the  wrong  may  have  an  end.  And  whenever  we 
can  get  rid  of  the  fog  which  obscures  the  real  question,  when  we 
can  get  Judge  Douglas  and  his  friends  to  avow  a  policy  looking 
to  its  perpetuation, — we  can  get  out  from  among  that  class  of 
men  and  bring  them  to  the  side  of  those  who  treat  it  as  a  wrong. 
Then  there  will  soon  be  an  end  of  it,  and  that  end  will  be  its  "uiti- 


APPENDIX  A  307 

mate  extinction."  Whenever  the  issue  can  be  distinctly  made, 
and  all  extraneous  matter  thro\vn  out  so  that  men  can  fairly  see 
the  real  difference  between  the  parties,  this  controversy  will  soon 
be  settled,  and  it  will  be  done  peaceably,  too.  There  will  be  no 
war,  no  violence.  It  will  be  placed  again  where  the  wisest  and 
best  men  of  the  world  placed  it.  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  once 
declared  that  when  this  Constitution  was  framed  its  framers  did 
not  look  to  the  institution  existing  until  his  day.  When  he  said 
this,  I  think  he  stated  a  fact  that  is  fully  borne  out  by  the  history 
of  the  times.  But  he  also  said  they  were  better  and  wiser  men 
than  the  men  of  these  days;  yet  the  men  of  these  days  had  ex- 
perience which  they  had  not,  and  by  the  invention  of  the  cotton- 
gin  it  became  a  necessity  in  this  country  that  slavery  should  be 
perpetual.  I  now  say  that,  wiUingly  or  unwilhngly,  purposely 
or  without  purpose.  Judge  Douglas  has  been  the  most  prominent 
instrument  in  changing  the  position  of  the  institution  of  slavery 
which  the  fathers  of  the  government  expected  to  come  to  an  end 
ere  this, — and  putting  it  upon  Brooks's  cotton-gin  basis;  placing 
it  where  he  openly  confesses  he  has  no  desire  there  shall  ever  be 
an  end  of  it. 

I  understand  I  have  ten  minutes  yet.  I  will  employ  it  in  saying 
something  about  this  argument  Judge  Douglas  uses,  while  he  sus- 
tains the  Dred  Scott  decision,  that  the  people  of  the  Territories 
can  still  somehow  exclude  slavery.  The  first  thing  I  ask  attention 
to  is  the  fact  that  Judge  Douglas  constantly  said,  before  the  de- 
cision, that  whether  they  could  or  not,  was  a  question  for  the  Su- 
preme Court.  But  after  the  court  had  made  the  decision  he  vir- 
tually says  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court,  but  for  the 
people.  And  how  is  it  he  tells  us  they  can  exclude  it?  He  says  it 
needs  "police  regulation,"  and  that  admits  of  "unfriendly  legis- 
lation." Although  it  is  a  right  established  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  to  take  a  slave  into  a  Territory  of  the  United 
States  and  hold  him  as  property,  yet  unless  the  Territorial  Legis- 
lature will  give  friendly  legislation,  and,  more  especially,  if  they 
adopt  unfriendly  legislation,  they  can  practically  exclude  him. 
Now,  without  meeting  this  proposition  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  pass 
to  consider  the  real  constitutional  obligation.  Let  me  take  the 
gentleman  who  looks  me  in  the  face  before  me,  and  let  us  suppose 
that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Territorial  Legislature.  The  first  thing 
he  will  do  will  be  to  swear  that  he  will  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.    His  neighbor  by  his  side  in  the  Territory 


3o8  APPENDIX  A 

has  slaves  and  needs  Territorial  legislation  to  enable  him  to  enjoy 
that  constitutional  right.  Can  he  withhold  the  legislation  which 
his  neighbor  needs  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  right  which  is  fixed  in 
his  favor  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  which  he  has 
sworn  to  support?  Can  he  withhold  it  without  violating  his  oath? 
And,  more  especially,  can  he  pass  unfriendly  legislation  to  violate 
his  oath?  Why,  this  is  a  monstrous  sort  of  talk  about  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States!  There  has  never  been  as  outlandish  or 
lawless  a  doctrine  from  the  mouth  of  any  respectable  man  on  earth. 
I  do  not  believe  it  is  a  constitutional  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a 
Territory  of  the  United  States.  I  believe  the  decision  was  improp- 
erly made  and  I  go  for  reversing  it.  Judge  Douglas  is  furious 
against  those  who  go  for  reversing  a  decision.  But  he  is  for  legis- 
lating it  out  of  all  force  while  the  law  itself  stands.  I  repeat  that 
there  has  never  been  so  monstrous  a  doctrine  uttered  from  the 
mouth  of  a  respectable  man. 

I  suppose  most  of  us  (I  know  it  of  myself)  believe  that  people  of 
the  Southern  States  are  entitled  to  a  Congressional  Fugitive  Slave 
law, — that  is  a  right  fixed  in  the  Constitution.  But  it  cannot  be 
made  available  to  them  without  Congressional  legislation.  In 
the  Judge's  language,  it  is  a  "barren  right,"  which  needs  legislation 
before  it  can  become  efficient  and  valuable  to  the  persons  to  whom 
it  is  guaranteed.  And  as  the  right  is  constitutional,  I  agree  that 
the  legislation  shall  be  granted  to  it, — and  that  not  that  we  like 
the  institution  of  slavery.  We  profess  to  have  no  taste  for  running 
and  catching  niggers, — at  least,  I  profess  no  taste  for  that  job  at 
all.  Why  then  do  I  yield  support  to  a  Fugitive  Slave  law?  Be- 
cause I  do  not  understand  that  the  Constitution,  which  guarantees 
that  right,  can  be  supported  without  it.  And  if  I  believed  that 
the  right  to  hold  a  slave  in  a  Territory  was  equally  fixed  in  the 
Constitution  with  the  right  to  reclaim  fugitives,  I  should  be  bound 
to  give  it  the  legislation  necessary  to  support  it.  I  say  that  no 
man  can  deny  his  obligation  to  give  the  necessary  legislation  to 
support  slavery  in  a  Territory,  who  believes  it  is  a  constitutional 
right  to  have  it  there.  No  man  can,  who  does  not  give  the  Aboli- 
tionists an  argument  to  deny  the  obligation  enjoined  by  the  Con- 
stitution to  enact  a  Fugitive  State  law.  Try  it  now.  It  is  the 
strongest  Abolition  argument  ever  made.  I  say  if  that  Dred 
Scott  decision  is  correct,  then  the  right  to  hold  slaves  in  a  Territory 
is  equally  a  constitutional  right  with  the  right  of  a  slaveholder  to 
have  his  runaway  returned.     No  one  can  show  the  distinction 


APPENDIX  A  30$ 

between  them.  The  one  is  express,  so  that  we  cannot  deny  it. 
The  other  is  construed  to  be  in  the  Constitution,  so  that  he  who 
beheves  the  decision  to  be  correct  beHeves  in  the  right.  And  the 
man  who  argues  that  by  unfriendly  legislation,  in  spite  of  that 
constitutional  right,  slavery  may  be  driven  from  the  Territories, 
cannot  avoid  furnishing  an  argument  by  which  Abolitionists  may 
deny  the  obligation  to  return  fugitives,  and  claim  the  power  to 
pass  laws  unfriendly  to  the  right  of  the  slaveholder  to  reclaim  his 
fugitive.  I  do  not  know  how  such  an  argument  may  strike  a 
popular  assembly  Uke  this,  but  I  defy  anybody  to  go  before  a  body 
of  men  whose  minds  are  educated  to  estimating  evidence  and 
reasoning,  and  show  that  there  is  an  iota  of  difference  between 
the  constitutional  right  to  reclaim  a  fugitive,  and  the  constitutional 
right  to  hold  a  slave,  in  a  Territory,  provided  this  Dred  Scott  deci- 
sion is  correct.  I  defy  any  man  to  make  an  argument  that  will 
justify  unfriendly  legislation  to  deprive  a  slaveholder  of  his  right 
to  hold  a  slave  in  a  Territory,  that  will  not  equally,  in  all  its  length, 
breadth,  and  thickness,  furnish  an  argument  for  nullifying  the 
Fugitive  Slave  law.  Why,  there  is  not  such  an  Abolitionist  in  the 
nation  as  Douglas,  after  all. 

MR.  DOUGLAS'S  REJOINDER 

Mr.  Lincoln  has  concluded  his  remarks  by  saying  that  there 
is  not  such  an  Abolitionist  as  I  am  in  all  America.  If  he  could 
make  the  AboHtionists  of  Illinois  believe  that,  he  would  not  have 
much  show  for  the  Senate.  Let  him  make  the  Abolitionists  be- 
lieve the  truth  of  that  statement,  and  his  pohtical  back  is  broken. 

His  first  criticism  upon  me  is  the  expression  of  his  hope  that 
the  war  of  the  Administration  will  be  prosecuted  against  me  and 
the  Democratic  party  of  this  State  with  vigor.  He  wants  that 
war  prosecuted  with  vigor;  I  have  no  doubt  of  it.  His  hopes  of 
success  and  the  hopes  of  his  party  depend  solely  upon  it.  They 
have  no  chance  of  destroying  the  Democracy  of  this  State  except 
by  the  aid  of  Federal  patronage.  He  has  all  the  Federal  office- 
holders here  as  his  allies,  running  separate  tickets  against  the 
Democracy  to  divide  the  party,  although  the  leaders  all  intend  to 
vote  directly  the  Abolition  ticket,  and  only  leave  the  greenhorns 
to  vote  this  separate  ticket  who  refuse  to  go  into  the  Abolition 
camp.  There  is  something  really  refreshing  in  the  thought  that 
Mr.  Lincoln  is  in  favor  of  prosecuting  one  war  vigorously.    It  is 


3IO  APPENDIX  A 

the  first  war  that  I  ever  knew  him  to  be  in  favor  of  prosecuting. 
It  is  the  first  war  that  I  ever  knew  him  to  believe  to  be  just  or 
constitutional.  When  the  Mexican  war  was  being  waged,  and 
the  American  army  was  surrounded  by  the  enemy  in  JNIexico,  he 
thought  that  war  was  unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  unjust. 
He  thought  it  was  not  commenced  on  the  right  spot. 

When  I  made  an  incidental  allusion  of  that  kind  in  the  joint 
discussion  over  at  Charleston  some  weeks  ago,  Lincoln,  in  reply- 
ing, said  that  I,  Douglas,  had  charged  him  with  voting  against 
suppHes  for  the  Mexican  war,  and  then  he  reared  up,  full  length, 
and  swore  that  he  never  voted  against  the  supphes;  that  it  was 
a  slander;  and  caught  hold  of  Ficklin,  who  sat  on  the  stand,  and 
said,  "Here,  Ficklin,  tell  the  people  that  it  is  a  lie."  Well,  Ficklin, 
who  had  served  in  Congress  with  him,  stood  up  and  told  them 
all  that  he  recollected  about  it.  It  was  that  when  George  Ashmun, 
of  Massachusetts,  brought  forward  a  resolution  declaring  the  war 
unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  unjust,  that  Lincoln  had  voted 
for  it.  "Yes,"  said  Lincoln,  "I  did."  Thus  he  confessed  that  he 
voted  that  the  war  was  wrong,  that  our  country  was  in  the  wrong, 
and  consequently  that  the  Mexicans  were  in  the  right;  but  charged 
that  I  had  slandered  him  by  saying  that  he  voted  against  the 
supplies.  I  never  charged  him  with  voting  against  the  supplies 
in  my  fife,  because  I  knew  that  he  was  not  in  Congress  when  they 
were  voted.  The  war  was  commenced  on  the  13th  day  of  May, 
1846,  and  on  that  day  we  appropriated  in  Congress  ten  millions 
of  dollars  and  fifty  thousand  men  to  prosecute  it.  During  the 
same  session  we  voted  more  men  and  more  money,  and  at  the 
next  session  we  voted  more  men  and  more  money,  so  that  by  the 
time  Mr.  Lincoln  entered  Congress  we  had  enough  men  and  enough 
money  to  carry  on  the  war,  and  had  no  occasion  to  vote  for  any 
more.  When  he  got  into  the  House,  being  opposed  to  the  war,  and 
not  being  able  to  stop  the  supplies,  because  they  had  all  gone  for- 
ward, all  he  could  do  was  to  follow  the  lead  of  Corwin  of  Ohio, 
and  prove  that  the  war  was  not  begun  on  the  right  spot,  and  that 
it  was  unconstitutional,  unnecessary,  and  wrong.  Remember,  too, 
that  this  he  did  after  the  war  had  been  begun.  It  is  one  thing 
to  be  opposed  to  the  declaration  of  a  war,  another  and  very  dif- 
ferent thing  to  take  sides  with  the  enemy  against  your  own  country 
after  the  war  has  been  commenced.  Our  army  was  in  Mexico  at 
the  time,  many  battles  had  been  fought;  our  citizens,  who  were 
defending  the  honor  of  their  country's  flag,  were  surrounded  by 


APPENDIX  A  311 

the  daggers,  the  guns,  and  the  poison  of  the  enemy.  Then  it 
was  that  Corwin  made  his  speech  in  which  he  declared  that  the 
American  soldiers  ought  to  be  welcomed  by  the  IMexicans  with 
bloody  hands  and  hospitable  graves;  then  it  was  that  Ashmun  and 
Lincoln  voted  in  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  war  was 
unconstitutional  and  unjust;  and  Ashmun's  resolution,  Corwin 's 
speech,  and  Lincoln's  vote  were  sent  to  Mexico  and  read  at  the 
head  of  the  Mexican  army,  to  prove  to  them  that  there  was  a 
Mexican  party  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  who  were 
doing  all  in  their  power  to  aid  them.  That  a  man  who  takes  sides 
with  the  common  enemy  against  his  own  country  in  time  of  war 
should  rejoice  in  a  war  being  made  on  me  now,  is  very  natural. 
And,  in  my  opinion,  no  other  kind  of  a  man  would  rejoice  in  it. 
Mr.  Lincoln  has  told  you  a  great  deal  to-day  about  his  being 
an  old  line  Clay  Whig.  Bear  in  mind  that  there  are  a  great  many 
old  Clay  Whigs  down  in  this  region.  It  is  more  agreeable,  there- 
fore, for  him  to  talk  about  the  old  Clay  Whig  party  than  it  is  for 
him  to  talk  Abohtionism.  We  did  not  hear  much  about  the  old 
Clay  Whig  party  up  in  the  Abolition  districts.  How  much  of  an 
old  line  Henry  Clay  Whig  was  he?  Have  you  read  General  Single- 
ton's speech  at  Jacksonville?  You  know  that  General  Singleton 
was  for  twenty-five  years  the  confidential  friend  of  Henry  Clay 
in  Illinois,  and  he  testified  that  in  1S47,  when  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  this  State  was  in  session,  the  Whig  members  were 
invited  to  a  Whig  caucus  at  the  house  of  JNIr.  Lincoln's  brother-in- 
law,  where  Mr.  Lincoln  proposed  to  throw  Henry  Clay  over- 
board and  take  up  General  Taylor  in  his  place,  giving  as  his  reason 
that,  if  the  Whigs  did  not  take  up  General  Taylor,  the  Democrats 
would.  Singleton  testifies  that  Lincoln  in  that  speech  urged  as 
another  reason  for  throwing  Henry  Clay  overboard,  that  the  Whigs 
had  fought  long  enough  for  principle,  and  ought  to  begin  to  fight 
for  success.  Singleton  also  testified  that  Lincoln's  speech  did  not 
have  the  effect  of  cutting  Clay's  throat,  and  that  he  (Singleton) 
and  others  withdrew  from  the  caucus  in  indignation.  He  further 
states  that  when  they  got  to  Philadelphia  to  attend  the  National 
Convention  of  the  Whig  party,  that  Lincoln  was  there,  the  bitter 
and  deadly  enemy  of  Clay,  and  that  he  tried  to  keep  him  (Single- 
ton) out  of  the  Convention  because  he  insisted  on  voting  for  Clay, 
and  Lincoln  was  determined  to  have  Taylor.  Singleton  says  that 
Lincoln  rejoiced  with  very  great  joy  when  he  found  the  mangled 
remains  of  the  murdered  Whig  statesman  lying  cold  before  him. 


312  APPENDIX  A 

Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  tells  you  that  he  is  an  old  line  Clay  Whig! 
General  Singleton  testifies  to  the  facts  I  have  narrated,  in  a  public 
speech  which  has  been  printed  and  circulated  broadcast  over  the 
State  for  weeks,  yet  not  a  lisp  have  we  heard  from  Mr.  Lincoln 
on  the  subject,  except  that  he  is  an  old  Clay  Whig. 

What  part  of  Henry  Clay's  poUcy  did  Lincoln  ever  advocate. 
He  was  in  Congress  in  1848-9,  when  the  Wilmot  Proviso  warfare 
disturbed  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country,  until  it  shook  the 
foundation  of  the  Republic  from  its  centre  to  its  circumference. 
It  was  that  agitation  that  brought  Clay  forth  from  his  retirement 
at  Ashland  again  to  occupy  his  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  to  see  if  he  could  not,  by  his  great  wisdom  and  experience, 
and  the  renown  of  his  name,  do  something  to  restore  peace  and 
quiet  to  a  disturbed  country.  Who  got  up  that  sectional  strife 
that  Clay  had  to  be  called  upon  to  quell?  I  have  heard  Lincoln 
boast  that  he  voted  forty-two  times  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
and  that  he  would  have  voted  as  many  times  more  if  he  could. 
Lincoln  is  the  man,  in  connection  with  Seward,  Chase,  Giddings, 
and  other  Abohtionists,  who  got  up  that  strife  that  I  helped  Clay 
to  put  down.  Henry  Clay  came  back  to  the  Senate  in  1849,  and 
saw  that  he  must  do  something  to  restore  peace  to  the  country. 
The  Union  Whigs  and  the  Union  Democrats  welcomed  him,  the 
moment  he  arrived,  as  the  man  for  the  occasion.  We  believed 
that  he,  of  all  men  on  earth,  had  been  preserved  by  Divine  Provi- 
dence to  guide  us  out  of  our  difficulties,  and  we  Democrats  rallied 
under  Clay  then,  as  you  Whigs  in  Nullification  time  rallied  under 
the  banner  of  old  Jackson,  forgetting  party  when  the  country  was 
in  danger,  in  order  that  we  might  have  a  country  first,  and  parties 
afterward. 

And  this  reminds  me  that  Mr.  Lincoln  told  you  that  the  slavery 
question  was  the  only  thing  that  ever  disturbed  the  peace  and 
harmony  of  the  Union.  Did  not  Nullification  once  raise  its  head 
and  disturb  the  peace  of  this  Union  in  1832?  Was  that  the  slavery 
question,  Mr.  Lincoln?  Did  not  disunion  raise  its  monster  head 
during  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain?  Was  that  the  slavery 
question,  Mr.  Lincoln?  The  peace  of  this  country  has  been  dis- 
turbed three  times,  once  during  the  war  with  Great  Britain,  once 
on  the  tariff  question,  and  once  on  the  slavery  question.  His 
argument  therefore  that  slavery  is  the  only  question  that  has 
ever  created  dissension  in  the  Union  falls  to  the  ground.  It  is 
true  that  agitators  are  enabled  now  to  use  this  slavery  question 


APPENDIX  A  313 

for  the  purpose  of  sectional  strife.  He  admits  that  in  regard  to 
all  things  else,  the  principle  that  I  advocate,  making  each  State 
and  Territory  free  to  decide  for  itself,  ought  to  prevail.  He  in- 
stances the  cranberry  laws  and  the  oyster  laws,  and  he  might 
have  gone  through  the  whole  list  with  the  same  effect.  I  say  that 
all  these  laws  are  local  and  domestic,  and  that  local  and  domestic 
concerns  should  be  left  to  each  State  and  each  Territory  to  man- 
age for  itself.  If  agitators  would  acquiesce  in  that  principle,  there 
never  would  be  any  danger  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Union. 
Mr.  Lincoln  tries  to  avoid  the  main  issue  by  attacking  the  truth 
of  my  proposition,  that  our  fathers  made  this  government  divided 
into  Free  and  Slave  States,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  to  decide 
all  its  local  questions  for  itself.  Did  they  not  thus  make  it?  It 
is  true  that  they  did  not  establish  slavery  in  any  of  the  States,  or 
abolish  it  in  any  of  them;  but  finding  thirteen  States,  twelve  of 
which  were  slave  and  one  free,  they  agreed  to  form  a  government 
uniting  them  together  as  they  stood,  divided  into  Free  and  Slave 
States,  and  to  guarantee  forever  to  each  State  the  right  to  do  as 
it  pleased  on  the  slavery  question.  Having  thus  made  the  govern- 
ment, and  conferred  this  right  upon  each  State  forever,  I  assert 
that  this  government  can  exist  as  they  made  it,  divided  into  Free 
and  Slave  States,  if  any  one  State  chooses  to  retain  slavery.  He 
says  that  he  looks  forward  to  a  time  when  slavery  shall  be  abolished 
everywhere.  I  look  forward  to  a  time  when  each  State  shall  be 
allowed  to  do  as  it  pleases.  If  it  chooses  to  keep  slavery  forever, 
it  is  not  my  business,  but  its  own;  if  it  chooses  to  abolish  slavery, 
it  is  its  own  business,— not  mine.  I  care  more  for  the  great  prin- 
ciple of  self-government,  the  right  of  the  people  to  rule,  than  I  do 
for  all  the  negroes  in  Christendom.  I  would  not  endanger  the  per- 
petuity of  this  Union,  I  would  not  blot  out  the  great  inalienable 
rights  of  the  white  men,  for  all  the  negroes  that  ever  existed. 
Hence,  I  say,  let  us  maintain  this  government  on  the  principles 
that  our  fathers  made  it  on,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  State  to 
keep  slavery  as  long  as  its  people  determine,  or  to  abohsh  it  when 
they  please.  But  Mr.  Lincoln  says  that  when  our  fathers  made 
this  government  they  did  not  look  forward  to  the  state  of  things 
now  existing,  and  therefore  he  thinks  the  doctrine  was  wrong;  and 
he  quotes  Brooks,  of  South  Carolina,  to  prove  that  our  fathers 
then  thought  that  probably  slavery  would  be  abolished  by  each 
State  acting  for  itself  before  this  time.  Suppose  they  did;  suppose 
they  did  not  foresee  what  has  occurred, — does  that  change  the 


314  APPENDIX  A 

principles  of  our  government?  They  did  not  probably  foresee 
the  telegraph  that  transmits  intelligence  by  lightning,  nor  did  they 
foresee  the  railroads  that  now  form  the  bonds  of  union  between 
the  different  States,  or  the  thousand  mechanical  inventions  that 
have  elevated  mankind.  But  do  these  things  change  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  government?  Our  fathers,  I  say,  made  this  govern- 
ment on  the  principle  of  the  right  of  each  State  to  do  as  it  pleases 
in  its  own  domestic  affairs,  subject  to  the  Constitution,  and  al- 
lowed the  people  of  each  to  apply  to  every  new  change  of  cir- 
cumstances such  remedy  as  they  may  see  fit  to  improve  their  con- 
dition.   This  right  they  have  for  all  time  to  come. 

Mr.  Lincoln  went  on  to  tell  you  that  he  does  not  at  all  desire 
to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists,  nor  does  his 
party.  I  expected  him  to  say  that  down  here.  Let  me  ask  him, 
then,  how  he  expects  to  put  slavery  in  the  course  of  ultimate  ex- 
tinction everywhere,  if  he  does  not  intend  to  interfere  with  it  in 
the  States  where  it  exists?  He  says  that  he  will  prohibit  it  in  all 
Territories,  and  the  inference  is,  then,  that  unless  they  make  Free 
States  out  of  them  he  will  keep  them  out  of  the  Union;  for,  mark 
you,  he  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he  would  vote  to  admit  Kansas 
with  slavery  or  not,  as  her  people  might  apply  (he  forgot  that, 
as  usual,  etc.) ;  he  did  not  say  whether  or  not  he  was  in  favor  of 
bringing  the  Territories  now  in  existence  into  the  Union  on  the 
principle  of  Clay's  Compromise  Measures  on  the  slavery  ques- 
tion. I  told  you  that  he  would  not.  His  idea  is  that  he  will  pro- 
hibit slavery  in  all  the  Territories,  and  thus  force  them  all  to 
become  Free  States,  surrounding  the  Slave  States  with  a  cordon 
of  Free  States,  and  hemming  them  in,  keeping  the  slaves  con- 
fined to  their  present  limits  whilst  they  go  on  multiplying,  until 
the  soil  on  which  they  live  will  no  longer  feed  them,  and  he  will 
thus  be  able  to  put  slavery  in  a  course  of  ultimate  extinction  by 
starvation.  He  will  extinguish  slavery  in  the  Southern  States  as 
the  French  general  exterminated  the  Algerines  when  he  smoked 
them  out.  He  is  going  to  extinguish  slavery  by  surrounding  the 
Slave  States,  hemming  in  the  slaves,  and  starving  them  out  of 
existence,  as  you  smoke  a  fox  out  of  his  hole.  He  intends  to  do 
that  in  the  name  of  humanity  and  Christianity,  in  order  that 
we  may  get  rid  of  the  terrible  crime  and  sin  entailed  upon  our 
fathers  of  holding  slaves.  Mr.  Lincoln  makes  out  that  line  of 
policy,  and  appeals  to  the  moral  sense  of  justice  and  to  the  Chris- 
tian feeling  of  the  community  to  sustain  him.    He  says  that  any 


APPENDIX  A  315 

man  who  holds  to  the  contrary  doctrine  is  in  the  position  of  the 
king  who  claimed  to  govern  by  divine  right.  Let  us  examine  for 
a  moment  and  see  what  principle  it  was  that  overthrew  the  divine 
right  of  George  the  Third  to  govern  us.  Did  not  these  Colonies 
rebel  because  the  British  Parliament  had  no  right  to  pass  laws 
concerning  our  property  and  domestic  and  private  institutions 
without  our  consent?  We  demanded  that  the  British  Govern- 
ment should  not  pass  such  laws  unless  they  gave  us  representation 
in  the  body  passing  them;  and  this  the  British  Government  in- 
sisting on  doing,  we  went  to  war,  on  the  principle  that  the  Home 
Government  should  not  control  and  govern  distant  colonies  with- 
out giving  them  a  representation.  Now,  Mr.  Lincoln  proposes 
to  govern  the  Territories  without  giving  them  a  representation, 
and  calls  on  Congress  to  pass  laws  controlling  their  property  and 
domestic  concerns  without  their  consent  and  against  their  will. 
Thus,  he  asserts  for  his  party  the  identical  principle  asserted  by 
George  III.  and  the  Tories  of  the  Revolution. 

I  ask  you  to  look  into  these  things  and  then  tell  me  whether 
the  Democracy  or  the  Abolitionists  are  right.  I  hold  that  the 
people  of  a  Territory,  like  those  of  a  State  (I  use  the  language  of 
Mr.  Buchanan  in  his  Letter  of  Acceptance),  have  the  right  to 
decide  for  themselves  whether  slavery  shall  or  shall  not  exist 
within  their  limits.  The  point  upon  which  Chief  Justice  Taney 
expresses  his  opinion  is  simply  this,  that  slaves,  being  property, 
stand  on  an  equal  footing  with  other  property,  and  consequently 
that  the  owner  has  the  same  right  to  carry  that  property  into  a 
Territory  that  he  has  any  other,  subject  to  the  same  conditions. 
Suppose  that  one  of  your  merchants  was  to  take  fifty  or  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars'  worth  of  liquors  to  Kansas.  He  has  a 
right  to  go  there,  under  that  decision;  but  when  he  gets  there  he 
finds  the  Maine  liquor  law  in  force,  and  what  can  he  do  with  his 
property  after  he  gets  it  there?  He  cannot  sell  it,  he  cannot  use 
it;  it  is  subject  to  the  local  law,  and  that  law  is  against  him,  and 
the  best  thing  he  can  do  with  it  is  to  bring  it  back  into  Missouri 
or  Illinois  and  sell  it.  If  you  take  negroes  to  Kansas,  as  Colonel 
Jefferson  Davis  said  in  his  Bangor  speech,  from  which  I  have 
quoted  to-day,  you  must  take  them  there  subject  to  the  local  law. 
If  the  people  want  the  institution  of  slavery,  they  will  protect 
and  encourage  it;  but  if  they  do  not  want  it  they  will  withhold 
that  protection,  and  the  absence  of  local  legislation  protecting 
slavery  excludes  it  as  completely  as  a  positive  prohibition.    You 


3i6  APPENDIX  A 

slaveholders  of  Missouri  might  as  well  understand  what  you  know 
practically,  that  you  cannot  carry  slavery  where  the  people  do 
not  want  it.  All  you  have  a  right  to  ask  is  that  the  people  shall 
do  as  they  please:  if  they  want  slavery,  let  them  have  it;  if  they 
do  not  want  it,  allow  them  to  refuse  to  encourage  it. 

My  friends,  if,  as  I  have  said  before,  we  will  only  live  up  to  this 
great  fundamental  principle,  there  will  be  peace  between  the 
North  and  the  South.  Mr.  Lincoln  admits  that,  under  the 
Constitution,  on  all  domestic  questions,  except  slavery,  we  ought 
not  to  interfere  with  the  people  of  each  State.  What  right  have 
we  to  interfere  with  the  people  of  each  State?  What  right 
have  we  to  interfere  with  slavery  any  more  than  we  have  to  inter- 
fere with  any  other  question?  He  says  that  this  slavery  question  is 
now  the  bone  of  contention.  Why?  Simply  because  agitators 
have  combined  in  aU  the  Free  States  to  make  war  upon  it.  Suppose 
the  agitators  in  the  States  should  combine  in  one  half  of  the  Union 
to  make  war  upon  the  railroad  system  of  the  other  half?  They 
would  thus  be  driven  to  the  same  sectional  strife.  Suppose  one 
section  makes  war  upon  any  other  particular  institution  of  the 
opposite  section,  and  the  same  strife  is  produced.  The  only  remedy 
and  safety  is  that  we  shall  stand  by  the  Constitution  as  our  fathers 
made  it,  obey  the  laws  as  they  are  passed,  while  they  stand  the 
proper  test,  and  sustain  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  and 
the  constituted  authorities. 


APPENDIX  B 


The  Lincoln-Douglas  Debate  at  Alton 

(Prepared  as  an  exercise  in  briefing  by  a  class  in  written  argumen- 
tation) 

Senator  Douglas's  Speech 
Proposition:  Vote  for  Douglas  and  the  Democratic  Party 

Introduction 

Douglas  states  that  there  are  three  points  at  issue  between 
Lincoln  and  himself: 

1.  Whether  the  Union  can  exist  half  slave  and  half  free. 

2.  Whether  the  Supreme  Court  was  in  error  in  the  Dred  Scott 

Decision. 

3.  Whether   the  Declaration   of   Independence   included   the 

negroes. 

Proof 

Proposition:  (Repeated)  Vote  for  Douglas  and  the  Democratic 
Party,  because 

A.  The  Republican  creed  is  wrong  for  the  reason  that  it  cannot 

be  advocated  everywhere,  for 
I.  Any  creed  is  radically  wrong  that  cannot  be  proclaimed 
alike  in  every  state  in  the  Union. 

B.  Refutation:     The  argument  that  this  government  cannot 

exist  half  slave  and  half  free  is  unsound,  for 

I.  Each  state  decides  upon  its  own  institutions,  for 
a.  Each  state  is  sovereign. 

II.  If  the  makers  of  the  Constitution  had  believed  Lincoln's 

doctrine,  they  would  have  made  a  provision  establish- 
ing slavery,  for 
a.  At  that  time  twelve  out  of  thirteen  states  were  slave 
holding  states. 

317 


3l8  APPENDIX  B 

III.  It  would  be  unjust  for  the  Northern  states  to  attack 
slavery  in  the  slave  states,  for 

a.  When  the  free  states  were  in  the  minority  the  slave  states 

did  not  interfere  with  them. 

b.  It  would  violate  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  which  is 

guaranteed  them  in  the  Constitution. 

C.  Lincoln  is  undecided  about  the  admission  of  more  slave 

states,  for 

I.  He  would  not  answer  at  Ottawa. 

II.  At  Freeport  he  said  he  would  be  very  sorry  to  be  put  in  a 

position  to  decide  that  question. 

III.  He  has  not  answered  my  question  directly,  for 

a.  His  answer  depended  upon  whether  slavery  had  been 
kept  out  during  the  state's  whole  territorial  existence, 
etc. 

IV.  He  has  not  said,  and  will  not  say,  whether,  if  elected  to 

Congress,  he  will  vote  to  admit  any  territory  now  in 
existence  with  such  a  Constitution  as  her  people  may 
provide. 

V.  He  will  not  say  whether  he  will  redeem  our  pledge  with 

Texas. 

D.  Douglas  takes  a  clear  and  just  stand  on  these  questions,  for 
I.  He  plainly  states  that  he  wUl  let  the  people  of  any  terri- 
tory come  into  the  Union  slave  or  free  as  they  de- 
cide. 

E.  Douglas  has  stood  by  the  principles  he  advocated,  for 

I.  He  opposed  the  Lecompton  Constitution  because  it  did 

not  represent  the  will  of  the  people,  for 
a.  When  it  was  submitted  to  the  people  of  Kansas  last 
August  it  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  ten  to  one. 

II.  He  refused  to  support  the  English  bill,  for 

a.  He  was  right  and  honest  in  his  opposition  to  the  Lecomp- 

ton Constitution. 

b.  He  believed  that  whenever  Kansas  had  enough  people 

for  a  slave  state  she  had  enough  people  for  a  free  state 
but  the  English  bill  was  directly  opposed  to  this  prin- 
ciple, for 
I.  The  bill  provided  that  if  Kansas  came  in  as  a  slave 
state  it  would  be  admitted  with  a  population  of 
35,000,  but  if  it  desired  admission  as  a  free  state  it 
must  have  93,420  inhabitants. 


APPENDIX  B  319 

III.  He  opposes  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  to 

control  the  Senate,  for 
a.  It  will  lead  to  despotism. 

IV.  He  stands  on  the  same  platform  now  that  he  stood  on  in 

1850,  1S54,  and  1856,  for 
a.  Even  the  Washington  Union  admits  this. 
F.  The  principle  of  letting  the  people  of  each  state  decide  for 
themselves  about  slavery  is  the  right  principle,  for 

I.  It  is  the  principle  advocated  by  our  leading  statesmen  and 

patriots,  for 

a.  James  Buchanan  advocates  it,  for 

I.  He  said  so  in  his  letter  of  acceptance  after  he  received 
the  Democratic  nomination  for  the  Presidency  in 

b.  Chief  Justice  Taney  does  not  deny  this  principle. 

c.  The  Honorable  Jefferson  Davis  took  the  same  view  in 

his  speech  at  Bangor,  Maine. 

d.  The  Speaker  of  the  House,  Mr.  Orr,  holds  the  same  view. 

e.  Alex.  H.  Stephens  puts  the  same  construction  upon  it 

that  Douglas  does. 

II.  The  people  believe  it  is  right,  for 

a.  The  people  made  James  Buchanan  president  on  this 
same  principle. 

III.  It  is  the  principle  that  can  bring  peace  to  the  Union,  for 
a.  If  the  people  of  all  the  states  will  act  on  this  great  prin- 
ciple, and  each  state  mind  its  own  business,  take  care 
of  its  own  negroes,  and  not  meddle  with  its  neighbors, 
there  will  be  no  cause  for  dissension. 

Conclusion 

A.  A  plea  for  peace  by  adopting  the  principles  presented  in  the 

proof. 

B.  A  denunciation  of  those  who  seek  to  turn  this  public  contro- 

versy to  their  own  personal  advantage. 

Mr.  Lincoln's  Reply 
Proposition:  Vote  for  Lincoln  and  the  Republican  party. 

Introduction 
A,  Lincoln  advises  Judge  Douglas  to  continue  the  war  upon  the 
other  wing  of  his  party. 


320  APPENDIX  B 

B.  Douglas  should  not  make  too  much  of  Buchanan's  incon- 
sistency because  he  is  inconsistent  himself,  for  he  once 
championed  the  Missouri  Compromise  but  now  he  op- 
poses it. 

Proof 

Proposition:  (Repeated)  Vote  for  Lincoln  and  the  Republican 
party,  because 

A.  Refutation:  The  statement  that  I  have  complained  that  the 

Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred  Scott  case  had  decided  that 
a  negro  could  never  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  is 
untrue,  for 

I.  No  such  idea  can  be  found  in  my  speech. 

II.  The  truth  is  that  I  mentioned  the  Dred  Scott  Decision 

only  as  part  of  a  conspiracy  to  make  slavery  national. 

B.  Douglas  misrepresents  my  position  on  the  Declaration  of 

Independence,  for 

I.  He  has  garbled  my  Chicago  speech,  for 

a.  He  omitted  between  two  quotations  four  sentences  neces- 
sary to  my  meaning. 

II.  Douglas  has  taken   no  notice  of  an  extract  from  my 

Springfield  speech  in  which  my  views  are  clearly  ex- 
pressed. 

III.  My  position  is  the  same  as  that  of  Henry  Clay,  for 

a.  Clay  declared  the  Declaration  as  an  abstract  principle 

is  true  and  the  new  proposition  of  the  Dred  Scott 
Decision  is  intended  to  make  the  negro  nothing  but 
property  in  all  the  states. 

b.  Refutation:  The  statement  that  Henry  Clay  held  that 

the  negro  was  not  included  in  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence is  untrue,  for 

1.  He  never  expressed  this  belief. 

2.  The  speech  referred  to  in  the  Chicago  Times  as  show- 

ing that  this  was  Mr.  Clay's  view  shows  precisely 
the  opposite  view,  for 
(a)  He  says  that  it  is  true  as  an  abstract  principle  that 
all  men  are  created  equal,  but  that  we  cannot 
practically  apply  it  in  all  cases. 

C.  Lincoln  still  says  that  the  proposition  that  "A  house  divided 

against  itself  cannot  stand"  is  true,  for 
I.  The  agitation  over  slavery  will  not  cease,  for 


APPENDIX  B  321 

a.  Douglas'  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  has  stirred  up  the  whole 

discussion  again,  for 
I.  Although  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  declared  to 
be  the  end  it  has  stirred  up  strife  in  the  last  Congress 
and  throughout  the  entire  country. 

b.  In   its   pretense   to   confer  local   self-government   the 

Kansas-Nebraska  bill  proved  to  be  a  lie. 

II.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  hoped  to  put  slavery  in 

a  course  of  extinction,  for 

a.  They  provided  that  the  slave  trade  should  cease  after 

twenty  years. 

b.  The  Constitution  does  not  contain  the  words  "slavery" 

or  "negro  race,"  for 

1.  Its  framers  thought  slavery  a  temporary  thing. 

2.  Fugitive  slaves  are  not  mentioned. 

3.  The  representation  clause  avoids  using  these  words. 

III.  Refutation:  The  statement  that  the  framers  of  the  Con- 

stitution introduced  slavery  is  not  true,  for 
a.  They  found  it  but  marked  it  with  their  disapproval. 

IV.  Lincoln  wishes  to  return  to  the  policy  of  the  framers  of 

the  Constitution,  for 

a.  Refutation:  The  charge  that  the  Constitution  has  stirred 

up  this  agitation  over  slavery  is  false,  for 
I.  The  agitation  has  been  stirred  up  by  Judge  Douglas 
and  his  friends. 

b.  Other  local  laws  have  not  caused  strife,  for 

1.  The  cranberry  laws  of  Indiana  caused  no  strife. 

2.  The  oyster  laws  of  Virginia  have  not  caused  strife. 

c.  The  slave  traffic  has  caused  trouble  whenever  it  has 

attempted  to  extend  itself,  for 

1.  The  Missouri  Compromise  and  the  Annexation  of 

Texas  prove  this. 

2.  Slavery  has  divided  political  parties  and  churches. 
D.  The  real  issue  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  is  not  as  to 

states,  it  is  whether  Congress  shall  exclude  slavery  from 
the  territories  while  in  a  territorial  condition,  for 

I.  I  agree  with  Douglas  that  the  states  have  a  right  to  deter- 

mine for  themselves  about  slavery. 

II.  I  differ  from  Douglas  as  to  the  right  of  the  people  to 

take  slaves  into  the  territories  of  the  United  States, 
for 


322  APPENDIX  B 

a.  We  must  preserve  the  territories  for  free  white  people 
the  world  over. 

E.  Fundamentally  this  controversy  means  that  the  Republicans 

believe  slavery  to  be  wrong  and  the  Democrats  believe  it 

to  be  right,  for 
I.  The  Republicans  insist  that  slavery  shall  grow  no  larger. 
II  The  Democrats  never  treat  slavery  as  wrong,  for 

a.  When  the  proposition  to  abolish  slavery  in  Missouri 

failed  the  Democrats  rejoiced. 

b.  Douglas,  unlike  Clay,  does  not  care  whether  slavery  is 

voted  up  or  down. 

c.  Douglas  looks  to  no  end  of  the  institution  of  slavery. 

d.  Douglas  has  been  the  most  prominent  instrument  in 

placing  slavery  upon  "Brooks'  cotton-gin  basis" 
where  he  openly  confesses  he  has  no  desire  to  see  it 
ended. 

F.  Judge  Douglas'  position  on  the  Dred  Scott  Decision  is  a 

doctrine  of  lawlessness,  for 

I.  Before  the  Dred  Scott  decision  Douglas  said  constantly, 

that  whether  or  not  the  people  of  the  territories  could 
exclude  slavery  was  a  question  for  the  Supreme  Court 
to  decide.  Now  he  says  it  is  not  a  question  for  the  Su- 
preme Court,  but  for  the  people. 

II.  Douglas's  doctrine  of  local  police  regulation  is  contrary  to 

the  Constitution,  for 
a.  The  territories  cannot  withhold  the  legislation  which  a 
man  needs  for  the  enjoyment  of  a  right  fixed  in  his 
favor  by  the  Constitution. 

III.  If  such  a  right  as  Judge  Douglas  holds  to  be  a  right 

really  exists  then  the  fugitive  slave  law  can  be  made 
of  no  effect  by  the  same  kind  of  action. 

Mr.  Douglas's  Rejoinder 

Proposition:  Vote  for  Douglas  and  the  Democratic  party,  be- 
cause 

A.  Mr.  Lincoln's  tendency  is  toward  abolitionism. 

B.  Lincoln':;  course  in  Congress  with  reference  to  the  Mexican 

War  was  unpatriotic,  for 
I.  He  voted  that  it  was  unnecessary,  unconstitutional,  and 
unjust,  after  it  had  been  begun. 


APPENDIX  B  323 

C.  Refutation:  Lincoln's  claim  to  be  an  old  line  Clay  Whig  is 

false,  for 

I.  In  a  caucus  in  1847  Lincoln  wanted  to  throw  Henry  Clay 

overboard  and  take  up  General  Taylor  in  his  place. 

II.  Lincoln  was  the  bitter  enemy  of  Clay  in  the  National 

Convention  at  Philadelphia. 

III.  Singleton  says  that  Lincoln  rejoiced  greatly  at  Clay's 
defeat. 

IV.  Lincoln  never  supported  any  of  Clay's  policies,  for 

a.  Lincoln  voted  forty-two  times  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
whereas  Clay  opposed  it. 

D.  Refutation:  Lincoln's  statement  that  the  slavery  question 

is  the  only  thing  that  ever  threatened  the  Union  is  false, 
for 

I.  Nullification  threatened  the  Union  in  1832. 

II.  In  1 8 13  the  Hartford  Convention  threatened  the  Union. 

E.  The  fathers  made  this  government  divided  into  free  and 

slave  states,  recognizing  the  right  of  each  to  decide  all  its 
local  questions  for  itself,  for 

I.  They  did  not  abolish  or  establish  slavery  in  any  of  the 

states. 

II.  Refutation:  The  statement  that  conditions  have  changed 

does  not  affect  the  question,  for 
a.  Changed  conditions  do  not  change  the  principles  of  the 
government. 

F.  Lincoln  advocates  the  identical  principle  asserted  by  George 

III  and  the  Tories  of  the  Revolution,  for 
I.  He  wants  Congress  to  pass  laws  controUing  the  property 
and  domestic  concerns  of  the  people  in  the  territories, 
without  their  consent  and  against  their  will. 

G.  Douglas's  principle  of  local  option  on  the  slavery  question  is 

sufficient  to  preserve  peace,  for 
I.  It  preserves  peace  on  all  other  local  questions. 

Conclusion 
The  only  remedy  and  safety  is  that  we  stand  by  the  Constitu- 
tion as  our  fathers  made  it,  obey  the  laws  as  they  are  passed,  while 
they  stand  the  proper  test,  and  sustain  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  the  constituted  authorities. 


APPENDIX  C 

Lincoln's  Address  at  Cooper  Institute 
[February  27,  i860] 

Mr.  President  and  Fellow-citizens  of  New  York:  The 
facts  with  which  I  shall  deal  this  evening  are  mainly  old  and 
familiar;  nor  is  there  anything  new  in  the  general  use  I  shall  make 
of  them.  If  there  shall  be  any  novelty,  it  will  be  in  the  mode  of 
presenting  the  facts,  and  the  inferences  and  observations  following 
that  presentation.  In  his  speech  last  Autumn  at  Columbus,  Ohio, 
as  reported  in  the  New  York  "Times,"  Senator  Douglas  said: 

"Our  fathers,  when  they  framed  the  government  under  which 
we  live,  understood  this  question  just  as  well,  and  even  better, 
than  we  do  now." 

I  fully  indorse  this,  and  I  adopt  it  as  a  text  for  this  discourse. 
I  so  adopt  it  because  it  furnishes  a  precise  and  an  agreed  starting- 
point  for  a  discussion  between  Republicans  and  that  wing  of  the 
Democracy  headed  by  Senator  Douglas.  It  simply  leaves  the 
inquiry:  What  was  the  understanding  those  fathers  had  of  the 
question  mentioned? 

What  is  the  frame  of  government  under  which  we  live?  The 
answer  must  be,  "The  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  That 
Constitution  consists  of  the  original,  framed  in  1787,  and  under 
which  the  present  government  first  went  into  operation,  and 
twelve  subsequently  framed  amendments,  the  first  ten  of  which 
were  framed  in  1789. 

Who  were  our  fathers  that  framed  the  Constitution?  I  suppose 
the  "thirty-nine"  who  signed  the  original  instrument  may  be 
fairly  called  our  fathers  who  framed  that  part  of  the  present  gov- 
ernment. It  is  almost  exactly  true  to  say  they  framed  it,  and 
it  is  altogether  true  to  say  they  fairly  represented  the  opinion  and 
sentiment  of  the  whole  nation  at  that  time.  Their  names,  being 
familiar  to  nearly  all,  and  accessible  to  quite  aU,  need  not  now  be 
repeated. 

I  take  these  "thirty-nine,"  for  the  present,  as  being  "our  fathers 

324 


APPENDIX  C  325 

who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  hve."  What  is  the 
question  which,  according  to  the  text,  those  fathers  understood 
"just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now"? 

It  is  this:  Does  the  proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  au- 
thority, or  anything  in  the  Constitution,  forbid  our  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  control  as  to  slavery  in  our  Federal  Territories? 

Upon  this.  Senator  Douglas  holds  the  affirmative,  and  Republi- 
cans the  negative.  This  affirmation  and  denial  form  an  issue;  and 
this  issue — this  question — is  precisely  what  the  text  declares  our 
fathers  understood  "  better  than  we  ".  Let  us  now  inquire  whether 
the  "thirty-nine,"  or  any  of  them,  ever  acted  upon  this  question; 
and  if  they  did,  how  they  acted  upon  it — how  they  expressed  that 
better  understanding.  In  1784,  three  years  before  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  United  States  then  owning  the  Northwestern  Territory, 
and  no  other,  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation  had  before  them 
the  question  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  that  Territory,  and  four  of 
the  "thirty-nine"  who  afterward  framed  the  Constitution  were 
in  that  Congress,  and  voted  on  that  question.  Of  these,  Roger 
Sherman,  Thomas  MifHin,  and  Hugh  Williamson  voted  for  the 
prohibition,  thus  showing  that,  in  their  understanding,  no  line 
dividing  local  from  Federal  authority,  nor  anything  else,  properly 
forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  Federal 
territory.  The  other  of  the  four,  James  McHenry,  voted  against 
the  prohibition,  showing  that  for  some  cause  he  thought  it  im- 
proper to  vote  for  it. 

In  1787,  still  before  the  Constitution,  but  while  the  convention 
was  in  session  framing  it,  and  while  the  Northwestern  Territory 
still  was  the  only  Territory  owned  by  the  United  States,  the  same 
question  of  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territory  again  came  before 
the  Congress  of  the  Confederation;  and  two  more  of  the  "thirty- 
nine"  who  afterward  signed  the  Constitution  were  in  that  Con- 
gress, and  voted  on  the  question.  They  were  William  Blount  and 
WilHam  Few;  and  they  both  voted  for  the  prohibition — thus 
showing  that  in  their  understanding  no  line  dividing  local  from 
Federal  authority,  nor  anything  else,  properly  forbade  the  Federal 
Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  Federal  territory.  This 
time  the  prohibition  became  a  law,  being  part  of  what  is  now  well 
known  as  the  Ordinance  of  '87. 

The  question  of  Federal  control  of  slavery  in  the  Territories 
seems  not  to  have  been  directly  before  the  convention  which 
framed  the  original  Constitution;  and  hence  it  is  not  recorded 


326  APPENDIX  C 

that  the  "thirty-nine,"  or  any  of  them,  while  engaged  on  that 
instrument,  expressed  any  opinion  on  that  precise  question. 

In  1789,  by  the  first  Congress  which  sat  under  the  Constitution, 
an  act  was  passed  to  enforce  the  ordinance  of  '87,  including  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Northwestern  Territory.  The  bill 
for  this  act  was  reported  by  one  of  the  "thirty-nine" — Thomas 
Fitzsimmons,  then  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  from 
Pennsylvania.  It  went  through  all  its  stages  without  a  word  of 
opposition,  and  finally  passed  both  branches  without  ayes  and 
nays,  which  is  equivalent  to  a  unanimous  passage.  In  this  Con- 
gress there  were  sixteen  of  the  thirty-nine  fathers  who  framed  the 
original  Constitution.  They  were  John  Langdon,  Nicholas  Gil- 
man,  Wm.  S.  Johnson,  Roger  Sherman,  Robert  Morris,  Thos. 
Fitzsimmons,  William  Few,  Abraham  Baldwin,  Rufus  King, 
William  Patterson,  George  Clymer,  Richard  Bassett,  George 
Read,  Pierce  Butler,  Daniel  Carroll,  and  James  Madison. 

This  shows  that,  in  their  understanding,  no  line  dividing  local 
from  Federal  authority,  nor  anything  in  the  Constitution,  properly 
forbade  Congress  to  prohibit  slavery  in  the  Federal  territory; 
else  both  their  fidehty  to  correct  principle,  and  their  oath  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution,  would  have  constrained  them  to  oppose 
the  prohibition. 

Again,  George  Washington,  another  of  the  "thirty-nine,"  was 
then  President  of  the  United  States,  and  as  such  approved  and 
signed  the  bill,  thus  completing  its  validity  as  a  law,  and  thus 
showing  that,  in  his  understanding,  no  line  dividing  local  from 
Federal  authority,  nor  anything  in  the  Constitution,  forbade  the 
Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  Federal  territory. 

No  great  while  after  the  adoption  of  the  original  Constitution, 
North  Carolina  ceded  to  the  Federal  Government  the  country 
now  constituting  the  State  of  Tennessee;  and  a  few  years  later 
Georgia  ceded  that  which  now  constitutes  the  States  of  Mississippi 
and  Alabama.  In  both  deeds  of  cession  it  was  made  a  condition 
by  the  ceding  States  that  the  Federal  government  should  not 
prohibit  slavery  in  the  ceded  country.  Besides  this,  slavery  was 
then  actually  in  the  ceded  country.  Under  these  circumstances. 
Congress,  on  taking  charge  of  these  countries,  did  not  absolutely 
prohibit  slavery  within  them.  But  they  did  interfere  with  it — 
take  control  of  it — even  there,  to  a  certain  extent.  In  1798  Con- 
gress organized  the  Territory  of  Mississippi.  In  the  act  of  or- 
ganization they  prohibited  the  bringing  of  slaves  into  the  Territory 


APPENDIX  C  327 

from  any  place  without  the  United  States,  by  fine,  and  giving  free- 
dom to  slaves  so  brought.  This  act  passed  both  branches  of 
Congress  without  yeas  and  nays.  In  that  Congress  were  three 
of  the  "thirty-nine"  who  framed  the  original  Constitution.  They 
were  John  Langdon,  George  Read,  and  Abraham  Baldwin.  They 
all  probably  voted  for  it.  Certainly  they  would  have  placed  their 
opposition  to  it  upon  record  if,  in  their  understanding,  any  Une  di- 
viding local  from  Federal  authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, properly  forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to 
slavery  in  Federal  Territory. 

In  1803  the  Federal  Government  purchased  the  Louisiana  coun- 
try. Our  former  territorial  acquisitions  came  from  certain  of  our 
own  States;  but  this  Louisiana  country  was  acquired  from  a  for- 
eign nation.  In  1804  Congress  gave  a  territorial  organization  to 
that  part  of  it  which  now  constitutes  the  State  of  Louisiana.  New 
Orleans,  lying  within  that  part,  was  an  old  and  comparatively 
large  city.  There  were  other  considerable  towns  and  settlements 
and  slavery  was  extensively  and  thoroughly  intermingled  with 
the  people.  Congress  did  not,  in  the  Territorial  Act,  prohibit 
slavery;  but  they  did  interfere  with  it — take  control  of  it — in  a 
more  marked  and  extensive  way  than  they  did  in  the  case  of  Mis- 
sissippi. The  substance  of  the  provision  therein  made  in  relation 
to  slaves  was: 

ist.  That  no  slave  should  be  imported  into  the  Territory  from 
foreign  parts. 

2d.  That  no  slave  should  be  carried  into  it  who  had  been  im- 
ported into  the  United  States  since  the  first  day  of  May,  1798. 

3d.  That  no  slave  should  be  carried  into  it,  except  by  the  owner, 
and  for  his  own  use  as  a  settler;  the  penalty  in  all  cases  being  a 
fine  upon  the  violator  of  the  law,  and  freedom  to  the  slave. 

This  act  also  was  passed  without  ayes  or  nays.  In  the  Con- 
gress which  passed  it  there  were  two  of  the  "thirty-nine."  They 
were  Abraham  Baldwin  and  Jonathan  Dayton.  As  stated  in  the 
case  of  Mississippi,  it  is  probable  they  both  voted  for  it.  They 
would  not  have  allowed  it  to  pass  without  recording  their  opposi- 
tion to  it  if,  in  their  understanding,  it  violated  either  the  line  prop- 
erly dividing  local  from  Federal  authority,  or  any  provision  of 
the  Constitution. 

In  1819-20  came  and  passed  the  Missouri  question.  Many 
votes  were  taken,  by  yeas  and  nays,  in  both  branches  of  Congress, 
upon  the  various  phases  of  the  general  question.    Two  of  the 


328  APPENDIX  C 

"thirty-nine" — Rufus  King  and  Charles  Pinckney — were  mem- 
bers of  that  Congress.  Mr.  King  steadily  voted  for  slavery  prohi- 
bition and  against  all  compromises,  while  Mr.  Pinckney  as  steadily 
voted  against  slavery  prohibition  and  against  all  compromises. 
By  this,  Mr.  King  showed  that,  in  his  understanding,  no  line 
dividing  local  from  Federal  authority,  nor  anything  in  the  Con- 
stitution, was  violated  by  Congress  prohibiting  slavery  in  Federal 
territory;  while  Mr.  Pinckney,  by  his  votes,  showed  that,  in  his 
understanding,  there  was  some  sufficient  reason  for  opposing  such 
prohibition  in  that  case. 

The  cases  I  have  mentioned  are  the  only  acts  of  the  "thirty- 
nine,"  or  of  any  of  them  upon  the  direct  issue,  which  I  have  been 
able  to  discover. 

To  enumerate  the  persons  who  thus  acted  as  being  four  in  1784, 
two  in  1787,  seventeen  in  1789,  three  in  1798,  two  in  1804,  and 
two  in  1819-20,  there  would  be  thirty  of  them.  But  this  would  be 
counting  John  Langdon,  Roger  Sherman,  William  Few,  Rufus 
King,  and  George  Read  each  twice,  and  Abraham  Baldwin  three 
times.  The  true  number  of  those  of  the  "thirty-nine"  whom  I 
have  shown  to  have  acted  upon  the  question  which,  by  the  text, 
they  understood  better  than  we,  is  twenty-three,  leaving  sixteen 
not  shown  to  have  acted  upon  it  in  any  way. 

Here,  then,  we  have  twenty-three  out  of  our  thirty-nine  fathers 
"who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,"  who  have, 
upon  their  official  responsibihty  and  their  corporal  oaths,  acted 
upon  the  very  question  which  the  text  affirms  they  "understood 
just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now";  and  twenty-one 
of  them — a  clear  majority  of  the  whole  "thirty-nine" — so  acting 
upon  it  as  to  make  them  guilty  of  gross  political  impropriety  and 
wilful  perjury  if,  in  their  understanding,  any  proper  division  be- 
tween local  and  Federal  authority,  or  anything  in  the  Constitution 
they  had  made  themselves,  and  sworn  to  support,  forbade  the 
Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  Federal  Ter- 
ritories. Thus  the  twenty-one  acted;  and,  as  actions  speak  louder 
than  words,  so  actions  under  such  responsibility  speak  still  louder. 

Two  of  the  twenty-three  voted  against  Congressional  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  the  Federal  Territories,  in  the  instances  in  which 
they  acted  upon  the  question.  But  for  what  reasons  they  so  voted 
is  not  known.  They  may  have  done  so  because  they  thought  a 
proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  authority,  or  some  provision 
or  principle  of  the  Constitution,  stood  in  the  way;  or  they  may, 


APPENDIX  C 


329 


without  any  such  question,  have  voted  against  the  prohibition 
on  what  appeared  to  them  to  be  sufficient  grounds  of  expediency. 
No  one  who  has  sworn  to  support  the  Constitution  can  conscien- 
tiously vote  for  what  he  understands  to  be  an  unconstitutional 
measure,  however  expedient  he  may  think  it;  but  one  may  and 
ought  to  vote  against  a  measure  which  he  deems  constitutional  if, 
at  the  same  time,  he  deems  it  inexpedient.  It,  therefore,  would 
be  unsafe  to  set  down  even  the  two  who  voted  against  the  pro- 
hibition as  having  done  so  because,  in  their  understanding,  any 
proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  authority,  or  anything  in 
the  Constitution,  forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as 
to  slavery  in  Federal  territory. 

The  remaining  sixteen  of  the  "thirty-nine,"  so  far  as  I  have 
discovered,  have  left  no  record  of  their  understanding  upon  the 
direct  question  of  Federal  control  of  slavery  in  the  Federal  Terri- 
tories. But  there  is  much  reason  to  believe  that  their  understand- 
ing upon  that  question  would  not  have  appeared  different  from 
that  of  their  twenty-three  compeers,  had  it  been  manifested  at  all. 

For  the  purpose  of  adhering  rigidly  to  the  text,  I  have  purposely 
omitted  whatever  understanding  may  have  been  manifested  by 
any  person,  however  distinguished,  other  than  the  thirty-nine 
fathers  who  framed  the  original  Constitution;  and,  for  the  same 
reason,  I  have  also  omitted  whatever  understanding  may  have 
been  manifested  by  any  of  the  "thirty-nine"  even  on  any  other 
phase  of  the  general  question  of  slavery.  If  we  should  look  into 
their  acts  and  declarations  on  those  other  phases,  as  the  foreign 
slave-trade,  and  the  morahty  and  policy  of  slavery  generally, 
it  would  appear  to  us  that  on  the  direct  question  of  Federal  control 
of  slavery  in  Federal  Territories,  the  sixteen,  if  they  had  acted 
at  all,  would  probably  have  acted  just  as  the  twenty-three  did. 
Among  that  sixteen  were  several  of  the  most  noted  anti-slavery 
men  of  those  times — as  Dr.  Franklin,  Alexander  Hamilton,  and 
Gouvemeur  Morris — while  there  was  not  one  now  known  to  have 
been  otherwise,  unless  it  may  be  John  Rutledge,  of  South  Carolina. 

The  sum  of  the  whole  is  that  of  our  thirty-nine  fathers  who 
framed  the  original  Constitution,  twenty-one — a  clear  majority 
of  the  whole — certainly  understood  that  no  proper  division  of 
local  from  Federal  Authority,  nor  any  part  of  the  Constitution, 
forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control  slavery  in  the  Federal 
Territories;  while  all  the  rest  had  probably  the  same  understanding. 
Such,  unquestionably,  was  the  understanding  of  our  fathers  who 


330  APPENDIX  C 

framed  the  original  Constitution;  and  the  text  afl&rms  that  they 
understood  the  question  "better  than  we." 

But,  so  far,  I  have  been  considering  the  understanding  of  the 
question  manifested  by  the  framers  of  the  original  Constitution. 
In  and  by  the  original  instrument,  a  mode  was  provided  for 
amending  it;  and,  as  I  have  already  stated,  the  present  frame  of 
"the  government  under  which  we  live"  consists  of  that  original, 
and  twelve  amendatory  articles  framed  and  adopted  since.  Those 
who  now  insist  that  Federal  control  of  slavery  in  Federal  Terri- 
tories violates  the  Constitution,  point  us  to  the  provisions  which 
they  suppose  it  thus  violates;  and,  as  I  understand,  they  all  fix 
upon  provisions  in  these  amendatory  articles,  and  not  in  the 
original  instrument.  The  Supreme  Court,  in  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
plant  themselves  upon  the  fifth  amendment,  which  provides  that 
no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  "life,  Hberty,  or  property  without 
due  process  of  law";  while  Senator  Douglas  and  his  peculiar  ad- 
herents plant  themselves  upon  the  tenth  amendment,  providing 
that  "the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Con- 
stitution" "are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  to  the 
people." 

Now  it  so  happens  that  these  amendments  were  framed  by  the 
first  Congress  which  sat  under  the  Constitution — the  identical 
Congress  which  passed  the  act,  already  mentioned,  enforcing  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  Northwestern  Territory.  Not  only 
was  it  the  same  Congress,  but  they  were  the  identical,  same  in- 
dividual men  who,  at  the  same  session,  and  at  the  same  time 
within  the  session,  had  under  consideration,  and  in  progress  toward 
maturity,  these  constitutional  amendments,  and  this  act  pro- 
hibiting slavery  in  all  the  territory  the  nation  then  owned.  The 
constitutional  amendments  were  introduced  before,  and  passed 
after  the  act  enforcing  the  ordinance  of  '87;  so  that,  during  the 
whole  pendency  of  the  act  to  enforce  the  ordinance,  the  constitu- 
tional amendments  were  also  pending. 

The  seventy-six  members  of  that  Congress,  including  sixteen 
of  the  framers  of  the  original  Constitution,  as  before  stated,  were 
pre-eminently  our  fathers  who  framed  that  part  of  "the  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live"  which  is  now  claimed  as  forbidding 
the  Federal  Government  to  control  slavery  in  the  Federal  Terri- 
tories. 

Is  it  not  a  little  presumptuous  in  anyone  at  this  day  to  affirm 
that  the  two  things  which  that  Congress  deliberately  framed, 


APPENDIX  C  331 

and  carried  to  maturity  at  the  same  time,  are  absolutely  incon- 
sistent with  each  other?  And  does  not  such  affirmation  become 
impudently  absurd  when  coupled  with  the  other  affirmation, 
from  the  same  mouth,  that  those  who  did  the  two  things  alleged 
to  be  inconsistent,  understood  whether  they  really  were  incon- 
sistent better  than  we — better  than  he  who  affirms  that  they  are 
inconsistent? 

It  is  surely  safe  to  assume  that  the  thirty-nine  framers  of  the 
original  Constitution,  and  the  seventy-six  members  of  the  Con- 
gress which  framed  the  amendments  thereto,  taken  together,  do 
certainly  include  those  who  may  be  fairly  called  "our  fathers  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live."  And  so  assuming, 
I  defy  any  man  to  show  that  any  one  of  them  ever,  in  his  whole 
life,  declared  that,  in  his  understanding,  any  proper  division  of 
local  from  Federal  authority,  or  any  part  of  the  Constitution, 
forbade  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the 
Federal  Territories.  I  go  a  step  further.  I  defy  anyone  to  show 
that  any  living  man  in  the  world  ever  did,  prior  to  the  beginning 
of  the  present  century  (and  I  might  almost  say  prior  to  the  be- 
ginning of  the  last  half  of  the  present  century),  declare  that,  in 
his  understanding,  any  proper  division  of  local  from  Federal  au- 
thority, or  any  part  of  the  Constitution,  forbade  the  Federal 
Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the  Federal  Territories. 
To  those  who  now  so  declare  I  give  not  only  "our  fathers  who 
framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,"  but  with  them  all 
other  living  men  within  the  century  in  which  it  was  framed,  among 
whom  to  search,  and  they  shall  not  be  able  to  find  the  evidence 
of  a  single  man  agreeing  with  them. 

Now,  and  here,  let  me  guard  a  little  against  being  misunder- 
stood. I  do  not  mean  to  say  we  are  bound  to  follow  implicitly  in 
whatever  our  fathers  did.  To  do  so  would  be  to  discard  all  the 
lights  of  current  experience — to  reject  all  progress,  all  improve- 
ment. What  I  do  say  is  that  if  we  would  supplant  the  opinions 
and  policy  of  our  fathers  in  any  case,  we  should  do  so  upon  evidence 
so  conclusive,  and  argument  so  clear,  that  even  their  great  au- 
thority, fairly  considered  and  weighed,  cannot  stand;  and  most 
surely  not  in  a  case  whereof  we  ourselves  declare  they  understood 
the  question  better  than  we. 

If  any  man  at  this  day  sincerely  believes  that  a  proper  division 
of  local  from  Federal  authority,  or  any  part  of  the  Constitution, 
forbids  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the 


332  APPENDIX  C 

Federal  Territories,  he  is  right  to  say  so,  and  to  enforce  his  position 
by  all  truthful  evidence  and  fair  argument  which  he  can.  But  he 
has  no  right  to  mislead  others,  who  have  less  access  to  history, 
and  less  leisure  to  study  it,  into  the  false  beUef  that  "our  fathers 
who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live"  were  of  the 
same  opinion — thus  substituting  falsehood  and  deception  for 
truthful  evidence  and  fair  argument.  If  any  man  at  this  day  sin- 
cerely beHeves  "our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under 
which  we  live"  used  and  applied  principles,  in  other  cases,  which 
ought  to  have  led  them  to  understand  that  a  proper  division  of 
local  from  Federal  authority,  or  some  part  of  the  Constitution, 
forbids  the  Federal  Government  to  control  as  to  slavery  in  the 
Federal  Territories,  he  is  right  to  say  so.  But  he  should,  at  the 
same  time,  brave  the  responsibihty  of  declaring  that,  in  his  opinion, 
he  understands  their  principles  better  than  they  did  themselves; 
and  especially  should  he  not  shirk  that  responsibility  by  asserting 
that  they  "understood  the  question  just  as  well,  and  even  better, 
than  we  do  now," 

But  enough!  Let  all  who  believe  that  "our  fathers  who  framed 
the  government  under  which  we  live  understood  this  question 
just  as  well,  and  even  better,  than  we  do  now,"  speak  as  they 
spoke,  and  act  as  they  acted  upon  it.  This  is  all  Republicans  ask 
— all  Republicans  desire — in  relation  to  slavery.  As  those  fathers 
marked  it,  so  let  it  be  again  marked,  as  an  evil  not  to  be  extended, 
but  to  be  tolerated  and  protected  only  because  of  and  so  far  as 
its  actual  presence  amongst  us  makes  that  toleration  and  protec- 
tion a  necessity.  Let  all  the  guaranties  those  fathers  gave  it  be 
not  grudgingly,  but  fully  and  fairly  maintained.  For  this  Repub- 
Hcans  contend,  and  with  this,  so  far  as  I  know  or  believe,  they 
will  be  content. 

And  now,  if  they  would  listen — as  I  suppose  they  will  not — 
I  would  address  a  few  words  to  the  Southern  people. 

I  would  say  to  them:  You  consider  yourselves  a  reasonable 
and  a  just  people;  and  I  consider  that  in  the  general  qualities  of 
reason  and  justice  you  are  not  inferior  to  any  other  people.  Still, 
when  you  speak  of  us  Republicans,  you  do  so  only  to  denounce 
us  as  reptiles,  or,  at  the  best,  as  no  better  than  outlaws.  You  will 
grant  a  hearing  to  pirates  or  murderers,  but  nothing  like  it  to 
"Black  Repubhcans."  In  all  your  contentions  with  one  another, 
each  of  you  deems  an  unconditional  condemnation  of  "Black  Re- 
publicanism," as  the  first  thing  to  be  attended  to.    Indeed,  such 


APPENDIX  C  233 

condemnation  of  us  seems  to  be  an  indispensable  prerequisite — 
license,  so  to  speak — among  you  to  be  admitted  or  permitted  to 
speak  at  all.  Now  can  you  or  not  be  prevailed  upon  to  pause  and 
to  consider  whether  this  is  quite  just  to  us,  or  even  to  yourselves? 
Bring  forward  your  charges  and  specifications,  and  then  be  pa- 
tient long  enough  to  hear  us  deny  or  justify. 

You  say  we  are  sectional.  We  deny  it.  That  makes  an  issue; 
and  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  you.  You  produce  your  proof; 
and  what  is  it?  Why,  that  our  party  has  no  existence  in  your  sec- 
tion— gets  no  votes  in  your  section.  The  fact  is  substantially 
true;  but  does  it  prove  the  issue?  If  it  does,  then  in  case  we  should, 
without  change  of  principle,  begin  to  get  votes  in  your  section, 
we  should  thereby  cease  to  be  sectional.  You  cannot  escape  this 
conclusion;  and  yet,  are  you  willing  to  abide  by  it?  If  you  are, 
you  will  probably  soon  find  that  we  have  ceased  to  be  sectional, 
for  we  shall  get  votes  in  your  section  this  very  year.  You  will  then 
begin  to  discover,  as  the  truth  plainly  is,  that  your  proof  does  not 
touch  the  issue.  The  fact  that  we  get  no  votes  in  your  section  is 
a  fact  of  your  making,  and  not  of  ours.  And  if  there  be  fault  in 
that  fact,  that  fault  is  primarily  yours,  and  remains  so  until  you 
show  that  we  repel  you  by  some  wrong  principle  or  practice.  If 
we  do  repel  you  by  any  wrong  principle  or  practice,  the  fault  is 
ours;  but  this  brings  you  to  where  you  ought  to  have  started — to 
a  discussion  of  the  right  or  wrong  of  our  principle.  If  our  principle, 
put  in  practice,  would  wrong  your  section  for  the  benefit  of  ours, 
or  for  any  other  object,  then  our  principle,  and  we  with  it,  are 
sectional,  and  are  justly  opposed  and  denounced  as  such.  Meet 
us,  then,  on  the  question  of  whether  our  principle,  put  in  practice, 
would  wrong  your  section;  and  so  meet  us  as  if  it  were  possible 
that  something  may  be  said  on  your  side.  Do  you  accept  the 
challenge?  No!  Then  you  really  believe  that  the  principle  which 
"our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live" 
thought  so  clearly  right  as  to  adopt  it,  and  indorse  it  again  and 
again,  upon  their  official  oaths,  is  in  fact  so  clearly  wrong  as  to 
demand  your  condemnation  without  a  moment's  consideration. 

Some  of  you  delight  to  flaunt  in  our  faces  the  warning  against 
sectional  parties  given  by  Washington  in  his  Farewell  Address. 
Less  than  eight  years  before  Washington  gave  that  warning,  he 
had,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  approved  and  signed  an 
act  of  Congress  enforcing  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  North- 
western Territory,  which  act  embodied  the  policy  of  the  govern- 


334  APPENDIX  C 

ment  upon  that  subject  up  to  and  at  the  very  moment  he  penned 
that  warning;  and  about  one  year  after  he  penned  it,  he  wrote 
Lafayette  that  he  considered  that  prohibition  a  wise  measure, 
expressing  in  the  same  connection  his  hope  that  we  should  at  some 
time  have  a  confederacy  of  free  States. 

Bearing  this  in  mind,  and  seeing  that  sectionahsm  has  since 
arisen  upon  this  same  subject,  is  that  warning  a  weapon  in  your 
hands  against  us,  or  in  our  hands  against  you?  Could  Washington 
himself  speak,  would  he  cast  the  blame  of  that  sectionalism  upon 
us,  who  sustain  his  policy,  or  upon  you,  who  repudiate  it?  We 
respect  that  warning  of  Washington,  and  we  commend  it  to  you, 
together  with  his  example  pointing  to  the  right  application  of  it. 

But  you  say  you  are  conservative — eminently  conservative — • 
while  we  are  revolutionary,  destructive,  or  something  of  the  sort. 
What  is  conservatism?  Is  it  not  adherence  to  the  old  and  tried, 
against  the  new  and  untried?  We  stick  to,  contend  for,  the  iden- 
tical old  policy  on  the  point  in  controversy  which  was  adopted  by 
"our  fathers  who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live"; 
while  you  with  one  accord  reject,  and  scout,  and  spit  upon  that 
old  policy,  and  insist  upon  substituting  something  new.  True, 
you  disagree  among  yourselves  as  to  what  that  substitute  shall 
be.  You  are  divided  on  new  propositions  and  plans,  but  you  are 
unanimous  in  rejecting  and  denouncing  the  old  policy  of  the 
fathers.  Some  of  you  are  for  reviving  the  foreign  slave-trade; 
some  for  a  Congressional  slave  code  for  the  Territories;  some  for 
Congress  forbidding  the  Territories  to  prohibit  slavery  within 
their  limits;  some  for  maintaining  slavery  in  the  Territories  through 
the  judiciary;  some  for  the  "gur-reat  pur-rinciple"  that  "if  one 
man  would  enslave  another,  no  third  man  should  object,"  fantas- 
tically called  "popular  sovereignty,"  but  never  a  man  among  you 
is  in  favor  of  Federal  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Federal  Territories, 
according  to  the  practice  of  "our  fathers  who  framed  the  govern- 
ment under  which  we  live."  Not  one  of  all  your  various  plans 
can  show  a  precedent  or  an  advocate  in  the  century  within  which 
our  government  originated.  Consider,  then,  whether  your  claim 
of  conservatism  for  yourselves,  and  your  charge  of  destructiveness 
against  us,  are  based  on  the  most  clear  and  stable  foundations. 

Again,  you  say  we  have  made  the  slavery  question  more  promi- 
nent than  it  formerly  was.  We  deny  it.  We  admit  that  it  is  more 
prominent,  but  we  deny  that  we  made  it  so.  It  was  not  we,  but 
you,  who  discarded  the  old  policy  of  the  fathers.    We  resisted,  and 


APPENDIX  C  335 

still  resist,  your  innovation;  and  thence  comes  the  greater  promi- 
nence of  the  question.  Would  you  have  that  question  reduced  to 
its  former  proportions?  Go  back  to  that  old  policy.  What  has 
been  will  be  again,  under  the  same  conditions.  If  you  would 
have  the  peace  of  the  old  times,  re-adopt  the  precepts  and  pohcy 
of  the  old  times. 

You  charge  that  we  stir  up  insurrections  among  your  slaves. 
We  deny  it;  and  what  is  your  proof?  Harper's  Ferry!  John 
Brown!  !  John  Brown  was  no  Republican;  and  you  have  failed 
to  implicate  a  single  Republican  in  his  Harper's  Ferry  enterprise. 
If  any  member  of  our  party  is  guilty  in  that  matter,  you  know  it 
or  you  do  not  know  it.  If  you  do  know  it,  you  are  inexcusable  for 
not  designating  the  man  and  proving  the  fact.  If  you  do  not  know 
it,  you  are  inexcusable  for  asserting  it,  and  especially  for  persisting 
in  the  assertion  after  you  have  tried  and  failed  to  make  the  proof. 
You  need  not  be  told  that  persisting  in  a  charge  which  one  does 
not  know  to  be  true,  is  simply  malicious  slander. 

Some  of  you  admit  that  no  Republican  designedly  aided  or 
encouraged  the  Harper's  Ferry  affair,  but  still  insist  that  our  doc- 
trines and  declarations  necessarily  lead  to  such  results.  We  do 
not  believe  it.  We  know  we  hold  no  doctrine,  and  make  no  declara- 
tion, which  were  not  held  to  and  made  by  "our  fathers  who  framed 
the  government  under  which  we  live."  You  never  dealt  fairly 
by  us  in  relation  to  this  affair.  When  it  occurred,  some  important 
State  elections  were  near  at  hand,  and  you  were  in  evident  glee 
with  the  belief  that,  by  charging  the  blame  upon  us,  you  could 
get  an  advantage  of  us  in  those  elections.  The  elections  came,  and 
your  expectations  were  not  quite  fulfilled.  Every  Republican 
man  knew  that,  as  to  himself  at  least,  your  charge  was  a  slander, 
and  he  was  not  much  incHned  by  it  to  cast  his  vote  in  your  favor. 
Republican  doctrines  and  declarations  are  accompanied  with  a 
continual  protest  against  any  interference  whatever  with  your 
slaves,  or  with  you  about  your  slaves.  Surely,  this  does  not  en- 
courage them  to  revolt.  True,  we  do,  in  common  with  "our  fathers 
who  framed  the  government  under  which  we  live,"  declare  our 
belief  that  slavery  is  wrong;  but  the  slaves  do  not  hear  us  declare 
even  this.  For  anything  we  say  or  do,  the  slaves  would  scarcely 
know  there  is  a  Republican  party.  I  beheve  they  would  not,  in 
fact,  generally  know  it  but  for  your  misrepresentations  of  us  in 
their  hearing.  In  your  political  contests  among  yourselves  each 
faction  charges  the  other  with  sympathy  with  Black  Republi- 


336  APPENDIX  C 

canism;  and  then,  to  give  point  to  the  charge,  defines  Black  Re- 
publicanism to  simply  be  insurrection,  blood,  and  thunder  among 
the  slaves. 

Slave  insurrections  are  no  more  common  now  than  they  were 
before  the  Republican  party  was  organized.  What  induced  the 
Southampton  insurrection,  twenty-eight  years  ago,  in  which  at 
least  three  times  as  many  lives  were  lost  as  at  Harper's  Ferry? 
You  can  scarcely  stretch  your  very  elastic  fancy  to  the  conclusion 
that  Southampton  was  "got  up  by  Black  Repubhcanism."  In 
the  present  state  of  things  in  the  United  States,  I  do  not  think  a 
general,  or  even  a  very  extensive,  slave  insurrection  is  possible. 
The  indispensable  concert  of  action  cannot  be  attained.  The 
slaves  have  no  means  of  rapid  communication;  nor  can  incendiary 
freemen,  black  or  white,  supply  it.  The  explosive  materials  are 
everywhere  in  parcels;  but  there  neither  are,  nor  can  be  suppUed, 
the  indispensable  connecting  trains. 

Much  is  said  by  Southern  people  about  the  affection  of  slaves 
for  their  masters  and  mistresses;  and  a  part  of  it,  at  least,  is  true. 
A  plot  for  an  uprising  could  scarcely  be  devised  and  communicated 
to  twenty  individuals  before  some  one  of  them,  to  save  the  life 
of  a  favorite  master  or  mistress,  would  divulge  it.  This  is  the  rule; 
and  the  slave  revolution  in  Hayti  was  not  an  exception  to  it,  but 
a  case  occurring  under  peculiar  circumstances.  The  gunpowder 
plot  of  British  history,  though  not  connected  with  slaves,  was  more 
in  point.  In  that  case,  only  about  twenty  were  admitted  to  the 
secret;  and  yet  one  of  them,  in  his  anxiety  to  save  a  friend  be- 
trayed the  plot  to  that  friend,  and,  by  consequence,  averted  the 
calamity.  Occasional  poisonings  from  the  kitchen,  and  open  or 
stealthy  assassinations  in  the  field,  and  local  revolts  extending  to 
a  score  or  so,  will  continue  to  occur  as  the  natural  results  of  slav- 
ery; but  no  general  insurrection  of  slaves,  as  I  think,  can  happen 
in  this  country  for  a  long  time.  Whoever  much  fears,  or  much 
hopes,  for  such  an  event,  will  be  alike  disappointed. 

In  the  language  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  uttered  many  years  ago,  "It 
is  still  in  our  power  to  direct  the  process  of  emancipation  and  de- 
portation peaceably,  and  in  such  slow  degrees,  as  that  the  evil  will 
wear  off  insensibly;  and  their  places  be,  pari  passu,  filled  up  by 
free  white  laborers.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  left  to  force  itself  on, 
human  nature  must  shudder  at  the  prospect  held  up." 

Mr.  Jefferson  did  not  mean  to  say,  nor  do  I,  that  the  power  of 
emancq)ation  is  in  the  Federal  Government.    He  spoke  of  Vir- 


APPENDIX  C  337 

ginia;  and,  as  to  the  power  of  emancipation,  I  speak  of  the  slave- 
holding  States  only.  The  Federal  Government,  however,  as  we 
insist,  has  the  power  of  restraining  the  extension  of  the  institu- 
tion— the  power  to  insure  that  a  slave  insurrection  shall  never 
occur  on  any  American  soil  which  is  now  free  from  slavery. 

John  Brown's  effort  was  peculiar.  It  was  not  a  slave  insurrec- 
tion. It  was  an  attempt  by  white  men  to  get  up  a  revolt  among 
slaves,  in  which  the  slaves  refused  to  participate.  In  fact,  it  was 
so  absurd  that  the  slaves,  with  all  their  ignorance,  saw  plainly 
enough  it  could  not  succeed.  That  affair,  in  its  philosophy,  cor- 
responds with  the  many  attempts,  related  in  history,  at  the  assas- 
sination of  kings  and  emperors.  An  enthusiast  broods  over  the 
oppression  of  a  people  till  he  fancies  himself  commissioned  by 
Heaven  to  liberate  them.  He  ventures  the  attempt  which  ends 
in  little  else  than  his  own  execution.  Orsini's  attempt  on  Louis 
Napoleon,  and  John  Brown's  attempt  at  Harper's  Ferry,  were,  in 
their  philosophy,  precisely  the  same.  The  eagerness  to  cast  blame 
on  old  England  in  the  one  case,  and  on  New  England  in  the  other, 
does  not  disprove  the  sameness  of  the  two  things. 

And  how  much  would  it  avail  you,  if  you  could  by  the  use  of 
John  Brown,  Helper's  book,  and  the  like,  break  up  the  Republican 
organization?  Human  action  can  be  modified  to  some  extent,  but 
human  nature  cannot  be  changed.  There  is  a  judgment  and  a 
feeling  against  slavery  in  this  nation,  which  cast  at  least  a  million 
and  a  half  of  votes.  You  cannot  destroy  that  judgment  and  feel- 
ing— that  sentiment — by  breaking  up  the  political  organization 
which  rallies  around  it.  You  can  scarcely  scatter  and  disperse 
an  army  which  has  been  formed  into  order  in  the  face  of  your 
heaviest  fire;  but  if  you  could,  how  much  would  you  gain  by  forc- 
ing the  sentiment  which  created  it  out  of  the  peaceful  channel 
of  the  ballot-box  into  some  other  channel?  What  would  that  other 
channel  probably  be?  Would  the  number  of  John  Browns  be  les- 
sened or  enlarged  by  the  operation? 

But  you  will  break  up  the  Union  rather  than  submit  to  a  denial 
of  your  constitutional  rights. 

That  has  a  somewhat  reckless  sound;  but  it  would  be  palliated, 
if  not  fully  justified,  were  we  proposing,  by  the  mere  force  of  num- 
bers, to  deprive  you  of  some  right  plainly  written  down  in  the 
Constitution.    But  we  are  proposing  no  such  thing. 

When  you  make  these  declarations  you  have  a  specific  and 
well-understood  allusion  to  an  assumed  constitutional  right  of 


^^S  APPENDIX  C 

yours  to  take  slaves  into  the  Federal  Territories,  and  to  hold  them 
there  as  property.  But  no  such  right  is  specially  written  in  the 
Constitution.  That  instrument  is  literally  silent  about  any  such 
right.  We,  on  the  contrary,  deny  that  such  a  right  has  any  exist- 
ence in  the  Constitution,  even  by  implication. 

Your  purpose,  then,  plainly  stated,  is  that  you  wUl  destroy  the 
government,  unless  you  be  allowed  to  construe  and  force  the  Con- 
stitution as  you  please,  on  all  points  in  dispute  between  you  and 
us.    You  will  rule  or  ruin  in  all  events. 

This,  plainly  stated,  is  your  language.  Perhaps  you  will  say 
the  Supreme  Court  has  decided  the  disputed  constitutional  ques- 
tion in  your  favor.  Not  quite  so.  But  waiving  the  lawyer's  dis- 
tinction between  dictum  and  decision  the  court  has  decided  the 
question  for  you  in  a  sort  of  way.  The  court  has  substantially 
said,  it  is  your  constitutional  right  to  take  slaves  into  the  Federal 
Territories,  and  to  hold  them  there  as  property.  When  I  say  the 
decision  was  made  in  a  sort  of  way,  I  mean  it  was  made  in  a  divided 
court,  by  a  bare  majority  of  the  judges,  and  they  not  quite  agree- 
ing with  one  another  in  the  reasons  for  making  it;  that  it  is  so  made 
as  that  its  avowed  supporters  disagree  with  one  another  about  its 
meaning,  and  that  it  was  mainly  based  upon  a  mistaken  statement 
of  fact — the  statement  in  the  opinion  that  "the  right  of  property 
in  a  slave  is  distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution." 

An  inspection  of  the  Constitution  will  show  that  the  right  of 
property  in  a  slave  is  not  "distinctly  and  expressly  affirmed"  in 
it.  Bear  in  mind,  the  judges  do  not  pledge  their  judicial  opinion 
that  such  right  is  impliedly  affirmed  in  the  Constitution;  but 
they  pledge  their  veracity  that  it  is  "distinctly  and  expressly" 
affirmed  there — "distinctly,"  that  is,  not  mingled  with  anything 
else — "expressly,"  that  is  in  words  meaning  just  that,  without  the 
aid  of  any  inference,  and  susceptible  of  no  other  meaning. 

If  they  had  only  pledged  their  judicial  opinion  that  such  right 
is  affirmed  in  the  instrument  by  implication,  it  would  be  open 
to  others  to  show  that  neither  the  word  "slave"  nor  "slavery" 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Constitution,  nor  the  word  "property"  even, 
in  any  connection  with  language  alluding  to  the  thing  slave,  or 
slavery;  and  that  wherever  in  that  instrument  the  slave  is  alluded 
to,  he  is  called  a  "person";  and  wherever  his  master's  legal  right 
in  relation  to  him  is  alluded  to,  it  is  spoken  of  as  "service  or  labor 
which  may  be  due" — as  a  debt  payable  in  service  or  labor.  Also 
it  would  be  open  to  show,  by  contemporaneous  history,  that  this 


APPENDIX  C  339 

mode  of  alluding  to  slaves  and  slavery,  instead  of  speaking  of 
them,  was  employed  on  purpose  to  exclude  from  the  Constitution 
the  idea  that  there  could  be  property  in  man. 

To  show  all  this  is  easy  and  certain. 

When  this  obvious  mistake  of  the  judges  shall  be  brought  to 
their  notice,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  expect  that  they  will  withdraw 
the  mistaken  statement,  and  reconsider  the  conclusion  based 
upon  it? 

And  then  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  "our  fathers  who  framed 
the  government  under  which  we  live" — the  men  who  made  the 
Constitution — decided  this  same  constitutional  question  in  our 
favor  long  ago ;  decided  it  without  division  among  themselves  when 
making  the  decision;  without  division  among  themselves  about  the 
meaning  of  it  after  it  was  made,  and,  so  far  as  any  evidence  is 
left,  without  basing  it  upon  any  mistaken  statement  of  facts. 

Under  all  these  circumstances,  do  you  really  feel  yourselves 
justified  to  break  up  this  government  unless  such  a  court  decision 
as  yours  is  shall  be  at  once  submitted  to  as  a  conclusive  and  final 
rule  of  political  action?  But  you  will  not  abide  the  election  of  a 
Republican  president!  In  that  supposed  event,  you  say,  you  will 
destroy  the  Union;  and  then,  you  say,  the  great  crime  of  having 
destroyed  it  will  be  upon  us!  That  is  cool.  A  highwayman  holds 
a  pistol  to  my  ear,  and  mutters  through  his  teeth,  "Stand  and  de- 
liver, or  I  shall  kill  you,  and  then  you  will  be  a  murderer! " 

To  be  sure,  what  the  robber  demanded  of  me — my  money — was 
my  own;  and  I  had  a  clear  right  to  keep  it;  but  it  was  no  more 
my  own  than  my  vote  is  my  own ;  and  the  threat  of  death  to  me, 
to  extort  my  money,  and  the  threat  of  destruction  to  the  Union, 
to  extort  my  vote,  can  scarcely  be  distinguished  in  principle. 

A  few  words  now  to  Republicans.  It  is  exceedingly  desirable 
that  all  parts  of  this  great  Confederacy  shall  be  at  peace,  and  in 
harmony  one  with  another.  Let  us  Republicans  do  our  part  to 
have  it  so.  Even  though  much  provoked,  let  us  do  nothing  through 
passion  and  ill  temper.  Even  though  the  Southern  people  will 
not  so  much  as  listen  to  us,  let  us  calmly  consider  their  demands, 
and  yield  to  them  if,  in  our  deliberate  view  of  our  duty,  we  pos- 
sibly can.  Judging  by  all  they  say  and  do,  and  by  the  subject 
and  nature  of  their  controversy  with  us,  let  us  determine,  if  we 
can,  what  will  satisfy  them. 

Will  they  be  satisfied  if  the  Territories  be  unconditionally  sur- 
rendered to  them?    We  know  they  will  not.    In  all  their  present 


340  APPENDIX  C 

complaints  against  us,  the  Territories  are  scarcely  mentioned. 
Invasions  and  insurrections  are  the  rage  now.  Will  it  satisfy 
them  if,  in  the  future,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  invasions  and 
insurrections?  We  know  it  will  not.  We  so  know,  because  we 
know  we  never  had  anything  to  do  with  invasions  and  insurrec- 
tions; and  yet  this  total  abstaining  does  not  exempt  us  from  the 
charge  and  the  denunciation. 

The  question  recurs,  What  will  satisfy  them?  Simply  this:  we 
must  not  only  let  them  alone,  but  we  must  somehow  convince 
them  that  we  do  let  them  alone.  This,  we  know  by  experience, 
is  no  easy  task.  We  have  been  so  trying  to  convince  them  from 
the  very  beginning  of  our  organization,  but  with  no  success.  In 
all  our  platforms  and  speeches  we  have  constantly  protested  our 
purpose  to  let  them  alone;  but  this  has  had  no  tendency  to  con- 
vince them.  Alike  unavailing  to  convince  them  is  the  fact  that 
they  have  never  detected  a  man  of  us  in  any  attempt  to  disturb 
them. 

These  natural  and  apparently  adequate  means  aU  failing,  what 
will  convince  them?  This,  and  this  only:  cease  to  call  slavery 
wrong,  and  join  them  in  calling  it  right.  And  this  must  be  done 
thoroughly — done  in  acts  as  well  as  in  words.  Silence  will  not 
be  tolerated — we  must  place  ourselves  avowedly  with  them. 
Senator  Douglas's  new  sedition  law  must  be  enacted  and  en- 
forced, suppressing  all  declarations  that  slavery  is  wrong,  whether 
made  in  politics,  in  presses,  in  pulpits,  or  in  private.  We  must 
arrest  and  return  their  fugitive  slaves  with  greedy  pleasure.  We 
must  pull  down  our  free  State  constitutions.  The  whole  atmos- 
phere must  be  disinfected  from  all  taint  of  opposition  to  slavery,  be- 
fore they  will  cease  to  believe  that  all  their  troubles  proceed  from  us. 

I  am  quite  aware  they  do  not  state  their  case  precisely  in  this 
way.  Most  of  them  would  probably  say  to  us,  "Let  us  alone;  do 
nothing  to  us,  and  say  what  you  please  about  slavery."  But  we 
do  let  them  alone — have  never  disturbed  them — so  that,  after 
all,  it  is  what  we  say  which  dissatisfies  them.  They  will  continue 
to  accuse  us  of  doing,  until  we  cease  saying. 

I  am  also  aware  they  have  not  as  yet  in  terms  demanded  the 
overthrow  of  our  free-State  constitutions.  Yet  those  constitutions 
declare  the  wrong  of  slavery,  with  more  solemn  emphasis  than 
do  all  other  sayings  against  it;  and  when  all  these  other  sayings 
shall  have  been  silenced,  the  overthrow  of  these  constitutions  will 
be  demanded,  and  nothing  be  left  to  resist  the  demand.    It  is 


APPENDIX  C  341 

nothing  to  the  contrary  that  they  do  not  demand  the  whole  of 
this  just  now.  Demanding  what  they  do,  and  for  the  reason  they 
do,  they  can  voluntarily  stop  nowhere  short  of  this  consummation. 
Holding,  as  they  do,  that  slavery  is  morally  right  and  socially 
elevating,  they  cannot  cease  to  demand  a  full  national  recognition 
of  it  as  a  legal  right  and  a  social  blessing. 

Nor  can  we  justifiably  withhold  this  on  any  ground  save  our 
conviction  that  slavery  is  wrong.  If  slavery  is  right,  all  words, 
acts,  laws,  and  constitutions  against  it  are  themselves  wrong,  and 
sliould  be  silenced  and  swept  away.  If  it  is  right,  we  cannot  justly 
object  to  its  nationality — its  universality;  if  it  is  wrong,  they  can- 
not justly  insist  upon  its  extension — its  enlargement.  All  they 
ask  we  could  readily  grant,  if  we  thought  slavery  right;  all  we  ask 
they  could  as  readily  grant,  if  they  thought  it  wrong.  Their  think- 
ing it  right  and  our  thinking  it  wrong  is  the  precise  fact  upon  which 
depends  the  whole  controversy.  Thinking  it  right,  as  they  do, 
they  are  not  to  blame  for  desiring  its  full  recognition  as  being 
right;  but  thinking  it  wrong,  as  we  do,  can  we  yield  to  them?  Can 
we  cast  our  votes  with  their  view,  and  against  our  own?  In  view 
of  our  moral,  social,  and  political  responsibilities,  can  we  do  this? 

Wrong  as  we  think  slavery  is,  we  can  yet  afford  to  let  it  alone 
where  it  is,  because  that  much  is  due  to  the  necessity  arising  from 
its  actual  presence  in  the  nation;  but  can  we,  while  our  votes  will 
prevent  it,  allow  it  to  spread  into  the  national  Territories,  and  to 
overrun  us  here  in  these  free  States?  If  our  sense  of  duty  forbids 
this,  then  let  us  stand  by  our  duty  fearlessly  and  effectively.  Let 
us  be  diverted  by  none  of  those  sophistical  contrivances  wherewith 
we  are  so  industriously  plied  and  belabored — contrivances  such 
as  groping  for  some  middle  ground  between  the  right  and  the 
wrong:  vain  as  the  search  for  a  man  who  should  be  neither  a  living 
man  nor  a  dead  man;  such  as  a  policy  of  "don't  care"  on  a  question 
about  which  all  true  men  do  care:  such  as  Union  appeals  beseeching 
true  Union  men  to  yield  to  Disunionists,  reversing  the  divine  rule, 
and  calling,  not  the  sinners,  but  the  righteous  to  repentance;  such 
as  invocations  to  Washington,  imploring  men  to  unsay  what 
Washington  said  and  undo  what  Washington  did. 

Neither  let  us  be  slandered  from  our  duty  by  false  accusations 
against  us,  nor  frightened  from  it  by  menaces  of  destruction  to 
the  government,  nor  of  dungeons  to  ourselves.  Let  us  have  faith 
that  right  makes  might,  and  in  that  faith  let  us  to  the  end  dare  to 
do  our  duty  as  we  understand  it. 


APPENDIX  D 


Memorandum  of  Agreement  for  High   School  Debating 
League  under  the  Direction  of  a  College  or  University 

The  Bangor  High  School,  the  Bar  Harbor  High  School,  the 
Bucksport  East  Maine  Conference  Seminary,  and  the  Foxcroft 
Academy,  do  hereby  agree  to  form  an  Interscholastic  Debating 
League.  The  purpose  of  this  League  is  to  hold  debates  subject 
to  the  following  conditions: 

I 

The  executive  committee  of  the  League  shall  consist  of  the 
principal  of  each  of  the  above-named  institutions  and  of  the  De- 
bate Coach  at  the  University  of  Maine.  This  committee  shall 
meet  once  a  year  at  such  time  and  place  as  agreed  upon  by  the 
schools  and  the  University.  It  shall  have  charge  of  all  matters 
pertaining  to  the  League,  subject  to  the  provisions  herein  con- 
tained. 

n 

The  League  shall  hold  two  preliminary  debates  and  one  final 
debate  each  year,  according  to  the  following  plan: 

The  high  schools  and  academies  composing  this  League  shall 
be  divided  into  two  equal  groups.  Each  group  shall  hold  a  prelimi- 
nary debate  as  herein  provided.  The  two  winning  schools  shall 
then  meet  in  a  final  debate  to  be  held  at  the  University  of  Maine. 
The  executive  committee  shall  determine  at  its  first  meeting  the 
time,  place,  and  method  of  rotation  to  be  observed  in  holding 
contests  for  succeeding  years. 

Ill 

The  questions  for  debate  shall  be  selected  in  the  following 
manner: 

(i)  For  the  preliminary  contests.  On  or  before  October  first, 
each  school  at  which  a  debate  is  to  be  held  shall  submit  to  the 
visiting  school  a  list  of  three  propositions.    The  visiting  school 

342 


APPENDIX  D  343 

shall  thereupon  select  one  of  these  propositions  and  choose  the 
side  which  it  wishes  to  defend.  On  or  before  October  fifteenth, 
notice  of  this  selection  must  be  communicated  to  the  school  at 
which  the  debate  is  to  be  held. 

(2)  For  the  final  contest.  Immediately  upon  the  announcement 
of  a  decision  in  a  preliminary  contest,  the  principal  of  the  winning 
school  shall  mail  notice  of  the  result  to  the  Debate  Coach  of  the 
University  of  Maine.  The  Debate  Coach  shall  determine  by  lot 
the  school  which  is  to  propose  the  list  of  propositions  to  its  op- 
ponent. Notice  of  this  fact  shall  immediately  be  sent  to  the  school 
thus  designated.  This  school  shall  prepare  immediately  a  list  of 
three  propositions  and  submit  them  to  its  opponent.  Within  three 
days  the  opposing  school  shall  mail  to  the  other  school  an  an- 
nouncement of  the  proposition  which  it  has  selected  from  the  list 
proposed  and  shall  state  the  side  of  the  proposition  which  it  wishes 
to  defend. 

IV 

The  judges  for  both  the  preliminary  and  final  contests  shall 
be  selected  in  the  following  manner: 

Four  weeks  before  the  contest,  the  school  which  has  proposed 
the  Ust  of  propositions  shall  submit  to  its  opponent,  a  list  of  twelve 
judges.  The  opposing  school  shall  select  three  persons  from  this 
list  and  return  their  names  to  the  other  school.  This  school  shall 
immediately  attempt  to  secure  the  persons  so  named  to  act  as 
judges.  If  any  or  all  of  the  persons  selected  refuse  the  invitation 
to  serve,  the  proposing  school  shall  ask  the  visiting  school  to  select 
substitute  judges  from  the  list.  The  school  making  the  final 
selection  of  judges  may  require  at  any  time,  a  new  list  of  names 
from  the  opposing  school.  No  school  shall  propose  as  judge  any 
person  who  is  financially  or  officially  interested  in,  or  a  graduate 
or  former  student  of,  such  school. 

V 

In  the  preliminary  contests  the  visiting  school  shall  bear  all 
expenses  of  its  own  team.  The  school  at  which  the  contest  is 
held  shall  bear  the  expenses  of  procuring  judges  and  shall  have 
charge  of  all  local  arrangements. 

In  the  final  contest  each  participating  school  shall  bear  the 
expense  of  its  own  team  and  one-half  the  expense  of  the  judges. 


344  APPENDIX  D 

VI 

Each  school  shall  select  for  its  team  three  representatives  and 
an  alternate,  but  no  one  shall  be  chosen  who  is  not  a  bona  fide 
student  of  the  institution  which  he  represents, 

vn 

Each  debater  shall  be  allowed  two  speeches,  one  of  ten  (lo) 
minutes  duration,  the  other  of  five  (5)  minutes.  The  first  series 
of  speeches  shall  be  opened  by  the  affirmative,  and  shall  alternate 
between  affirmative  and  negative  speeches.  The  second  series 
shall  be  opened  by  the  negative,  and  shall  alternate  between  nega- 
tive and  aflSirmative  speeches. 

vm 

In  preparing  for  any  contest,  each  school  is  entitled  to  three 
vists  from  a  student  of  Argumentation  and  Debate  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Maine.  This  student  Coach  will  give  such  assistance 
as  is  asked  for  in  the  training  of  the  debaters  representing  each 
school.  No  charge  will  be  made  for  this  service,  but  each  school 
must  bear  the  expense  of  the  student  sent  to  coach  its  team. 

IX 

In  each  contest  the  judges  shall  be  instructed  to  award  the 
decision  on  the  merits  of  the  argument  as  presented  in  the  debate, 
and  not  upon  the  merits  of  the  question.  It  is  understood  that 
effectiveness  of  style  and  manner  of  delivery  are  to  be  considered. 


This  agreement  may  be  amended  at  any  time  by  the  unanimous 
vote  of  the  executive  committee. 

XI 

At  the  close  of  the  final  contest,  the  President  of  the  University 
of  Maine,  or  some  one  on  his  behalf,  will  present  to  the  winning 
team  the  University  of  Maine  Interscholastic  Debating  Cup. 
The  name  of  the  winning  school  and  the  year  of  the  contest  will 
be  engraved  upon  the  cup.  This  cup  will  be  kept  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  winning  school  until  within  one  week  of  the  next  annual 


APPENDIX  D  345 

contest.  At  this  time  it  shall  be  returned  to  the  University  of 
Maine  to  be  awarded  to  the  school  winning  the  final  contest  for 
that  year. 

XII 

At  the  close  of  the  final  contest,  the  President  of  the  University 
of  Maine,  or  some  one  on  his  behalf,  will  present  to  the  debater 
whose  work  is  regarded  by  the  judges  as  the  most  effective,  a 
scholarship  to  the  value  of  $30.00  good  for  one  year  in  the  above- 
named  institution. 

XIII 

This  agreement  shall  be  in  full  force  and  operation  when  one 
of  the  two  copies  herewith  submitted  to  each  of  the  four  institu- 
tions composing  the  League  is  signed  by  the  principal  of  the  in- 
stitution and  mailed  to  the  Head  of  the  Department  of  English 
at  the  University  of  Maine. 


APPENDIX  E 


Debating  Agreement  for  a  League  Composed  of  Five 
Institutions 

CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  CENTRAL  DEBATING  CIRCUIT 
OF  AMERICA 

ARTICLE  I 

Object. — The  object  of  this  organization  shall  be  to  foster 
interest  in  debate  by  holding  an  annual  contest  in  December  on 
the  Friday  evening  one  week  before  the  opening  of  the  holiday 
recess. 

ARTICLE  II 

Debating  Boards. — Each  university  shall  create  a  debating 
board  a  majority  of  whose  members  shall  be  of  the  faculty.  The 
members  of  this  board  shall  be  chosen  annually  as  each  university 
may  deem  wise.  The  debating  board  shall  have  general  super- 
vision of  all  debating  matters  of  the  league  affecting  its  university. 

ARTICLE  III 
Questions. — On  April  first  each  university  shall  submit  to 
each  of  the  others  a  question  properly  stated  for  debate.  On 
April  fifteenth  each  university  shall  send  the  five  questions  to 
each  of  the  others  arranged  in  the  order  of  its  choice.  The  ques- 
tion ranked  highest  by  all  the  universities  shaU  be  debated  by 
all  the  teams.  In  the  case  of  a  tie  the  selection  from  the  tying 
questions  shall  be  made  by  the  President  of  Yale  University. 

ARTICLE  IV 

Time  and  Order  of  Speaking. — Each  speaker  shall  have 
seventeen  minutes;  twelve  minutes  for  opening  and  five  for  re- 
buttal, but  the  order  of  rebuttal  speeches  on  either  side  may  be 
changed  at  the  wish  of  the  speakers  on  that  side.  The  negative 
shall  lead  in  the  rebuttal.  The  visiting  team  shall  support  the 
negative. 

346 


APPENDIX  E 


347 


ARTICLE  V 

Judges. 

{Contests  for  igoO-igo/  and  igio-igii) 

Contesting  states.  Place  of  contest.        Residence  of  Judge. 

Iowa  City (Illinois 

I  Nebraska 


Minnesota 

Iowa 

Nebraska 

Illinois 

Iowa 

Wisconsin 

Illinois 

Minnesota 

jy^f.^°"f^  1 Lincoln. 

Nebraska    i 


.Urbana (1°^^ 

I  Wisconsin 


.  Madison 


} 

1 Minneapolis 1^°^^ 

J  IWiso 


Illinois 
Minnesota 


Illinois 
Iowa 

Wisconsin 

Illinois 

Minnesota 

Wisconsin 

Nebraska 

Minnesota 

Iowa 

Nebraska 


Wisconsin 
Iowa 


{Contests  for  igoy-igoS  and  jgii-igi2) 
I Iowa  City 

} 

} 


Wisconsin 
Iowa 


f  Minnesota 
{Nebraska 


.  Urbana Iowa 


.  Madison . 


.  Minneapolis . 
.  Lincoln 


{Contests  for  igo8-igog  and  igi2-igij;) 
Iowa  City 


Minnesota] Urbana. 

Illinois         I 


Nebraska 

Wisconsin 

Iowa 

Minnesota 

Illinois 

Nebraska 


,  Madison . 


.  Minneapolis , 
.  Lincoln 


'  Illinois 
Iowa 

Wisconsin 
Minnesota 


J  Illinois 
I  Nebraska 
J  Wisconsin 
[Iowa 
I  Illinois 
I  Minnesota 
Wisconsin 
Nebraska 

Iowa 


348  APPENDIX  E 

Judges. 

{Contests  for  igog-igio  and  igij-igi4) 

Contesting  states.  Place  of  contest.  Residence  of  Judge. 


Nebraska 
Iowa 


.Iowa  City. 


Minnesota 
Illinois 


J°y^.  ! Urbana Wisconsin 

Illinois        J 


.  Madison Minnesota 


Minneapolis (Nebraska 


Illinois 
Wisconsin 

Wisconsin 

Minnesota  j    *    * |  Iowa 

JJ^^^^^fta  j Lincoln Iowa 

Nebraska 

On  April  first  each  university  shall  submit  judges  according 
to  the  above  schedule. 

When  a  single  state  furnishes  the  judges  for  any  contest  it  shall 
submit  a  list  of  24  names  to  each  of  the  two  competing  universities. 
These  lists  shall  be  duplicates. 

When  two  states  furnish  the  judges  they  shall  each  submit  a 
list  of  12  names. 

When  a  state  furnishes  judges  for  two  or  more  contests  it  shall 
make  up  its  several  lists  as  impartially  as  possible  with  reference 
to  the  distribution  of  able  men. 

Convenience  and  economy  for  the  attending  judges  shall  be  a 
factor  in  their  nomination  in  so  far  as  may  be  consistent  with  the 
choice  of  able  men. 

Not  later  than  the  first  of  October  preceding  the  contest  the 
visiting  university  shall  send  to  the  entertaining  university  a  list 
of  six  candidates  for  judges  chosen  from  the  proper  rolls.  Not 
later  than  the  same  date  the  entertaining  university  shall  send 
to  its  opponent  a  list  of  twelve  judges  chosen  from  the  proper  rolls. 
Each  university  shall  arrange  the  opponent's  list  of  candidates 
in  the  order  of  its  choice. 

Each  university  shall  have  the  right  to  challenge  any  or  all  of 
the  number  of  the  candidates  submitted  by  its  opponent  on  pres- 
entation of  good  and  sufficient  reason.  The  challenge  hst,  to- 
gether with  objections,  shall  be  returned  at  once  to  the  sender. 


APPENDIX  E  349 

The  list  shall  be  completed  and  re-submitted  not  later  than  October 
twentieth. 

It  is  further  understood  that  any  person  recommended  for  judge 
who  is  a  relative,  actual  or  prospective,  of  any  contestant,  or  who 
is  an  alumnus  of  either  university,  or  who  holds  or  has  held,  any 
official  relation  with  either  university  may  be  rejected. 

The  secretary  of  the  entertaining  university  shall  notify  the 
judges  by  a  joint  note,  the  form  of  which  shall  be  as  follows; 

The  state  universities  of  (name)  and  (name)  will  hold  a  joint 
debate  at  (place)  on  (date) .  The  specific  wording  of  the  proposi- 
tion for  debate  is,  "Resolved,  that  &c — 

We  shall  consider  ourselves  especially  favored  if  you  can  be 
with  us  at  (place)  to  hear  and  judge  this  contest.  (Insert  a  sen- 
tence here  stating  the  names  of  the  other  judges  who  have  been 
invited  or  who  consented  to  serve.) 

We  shall  of  course  meet  your  entire  expense.  Trusting  that 
we  may  have  an  early  and  favorable  reply,  we  remain, 

Respectfully  yours, 

A.  B.,  University  of 

C.  D.,  University  of 

The  entertaining  university  shall  sign  the  names  of  both  secre- 
taries to  the  letter  and  shall  enclose  a  stamped  envelop  addressed 
to  each  for  the  reply. 

Before  the  contest  the  judges  shall  be  entertained  at  a  hotel  and 
every  semblance  of  an  effort  to  influence  them  will  be  regarded  as 
dishonorable  conduct. 

The  secretary  will  secure  two  judges  from  the  list  of  the  enter- 
taining university  and  one  from  the  list  of  the  opponent  adhering 
strictly  to  the  order  recommended  by  the  respective  universities. 
But  if  any  name  or  names  should  be  found  on  both  lists  they  shall 
be  first  invited  to  serve. 

The  university  submitting  a  list  of  names  shall  always  report 
on  the  qualifications  of  the  judges  in  the  following  respects;  I.  Oc- 
cupation. II.  Where  educated.  III.  Politics.  IV.  Religion. 
V.  Official  relations  with  any  imiversity  of  the  league  at  any  time. 

ARTICLE   VI 

Instructions  to  Judges. — Each  judge  shall  be  instructed  to 
decide  for  himself  what  constitutes  effective  debate,  except  that 
he  shall  consider  both  thought  and  delivery.    Without  consiilta- 


35©  APPENDIX  E 

tion  he  shall  vote  affirmative  or  negative  on  the  merits  of  the 
debate,  not  on  the  merits  of  the  question.  He  shall  sign,  seal  and 
deliver  his  vote  to  the  presiding  officer  who  shall  open  the  votes 
and  announce  the  decision. 

ARTICLE   VII 

Expenses. — Each  university  shall  pay  all  the  expenses  of  its 
own  debaters.  All  other  expenses  of  the  contest  shall  be  paid 
by  the  entertaining  imiversity. 

ARTICLE   Vin 

Conduct  of  the  Debates. — In  the  contests  of  this  league  all 
communication  with  the  debaters,  by  prompting  or  otherwise, 
is  forbidden ;  also  the  introduction  of  both  private  correspondence 
and  charts  is  debarred. 

ARTICLE  IX 

Amendments. — This  constitution  may  be  amended  by  the  au- 
thorized representatives  of  the  universities  at  any  special  meeting 
or  by  correspondence  providing  twenty  days  notice  be  given  of 
the  changes  desired. 

ARTICLE   X 

Schedule. — The  schedule  for  debates  shall  be  as  follows: 

First  Year     Minnesota  shall  send  a  team  to  Iowa  City 
Nebraska       "      "     "     "     "   Urbana 
Iowa  "      "     "     "     "   Madison 

lUinois  "      "     "     "     "   Minneapolis 

Wisconsin      "      "     "     "     "  Lincob 

Second  Year  Minnesota  "  "  "  "  "  Madison 

Nebraska  "  "  "  "  "  Minneapolis 

Iowa  "  "  "  "  "  Lincoln 

Illinois  "  "  "  "  "  Iowa  City 

Wisconsin  "  "  "  "  "  Urbana 

Third  Year   Minnesota  "  "  "  "  "  Urbana 

Nebraska  "  "  "  "  "  Madison 

Iowa  "  "  "  "  "  Minneapolis 

lUinois  "  "  "  "  "  Lincoln 

Wisconsin  "  "  "  "  "  Iowa  City 


APPENDIX  E  351 

Fourth  Year  Minnesota  shall  send  a  team  to  Lincoln 

Nebraska       "      "     "     "     "  Iowa  City 
Iowa  "      "     "     "     "   Urbana 

lUinois  "      "     "     "     "  Madison 

Wisconsin      "      "     "     "     "  Minneapolis 


APPENDIX  F 


Memorandum  of  Agreement  for  a  Triangular  Debating 
League 

Debating  Agreement   between  Indiana  University,  Ohio   State 
University,  and  the  University  of  Illinois 

(Adopted  by  the  representatives  of  the  three  institutions  at 
Columbus,  June  17,  1905) 

Article  i. — This  organization  shall  consist  of  the  Indiana 
University,  Ohio  State  University,  and  the  University  of  Illinois, 
and  shall  be  known  as  the  State  University  Debating  League. 

Article  2. — Its  affairs  shall  be  conducted  by  an  executive  com- 
mittee consisting  of  one  member  of  the  Faculty  of  each  institution, 
to  be  selected  by  that  institution. 

(a)  One  of  these  shall  act  as  President,  one  as  Vice  President, 
and  one  as  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  each  holding  office  for  one 
year. 

(b)  The  three  offices  shall  be  filled  by  the  representatives  of 
the  three  institutions  in  rotation  in  the  following  order:  1 905-1 906 
Presidency,  Ohio  State  University,  Vice  Presidency,  Indiana  Uni- 
versity, Secretary  and  Treasurership,  University  of  Illinois;  1906- 
1907  Presidency,  Indiana  University,  Vice  Presidency,  University 
of  Illinois,  Secretary  and  Treasurership,  Ohio  State  University; 
1907-1908  Presidency,  University  of  Illinois,  Vice  Presidency,  Ohio 
State  University,  Secretary  and  Treasurership,  Indiana  University; 
and  thereafter  in  the  same  rotation. 

Article  3. — The  debates  shall  be  held  on  the  second  Friday 
in  March — one  at  Bloomington,  Indiana,  one  at  Columbus,  Ohio, 
and  one  at  Urbana,  Illinois.  In  the  year  1905-1906  the  teams  shall 
come  together  as  follows:  University  of  Illinois  and  Indiana  Uni- 
versity at  Bloomington;  Indiana  University  and  Ohio  State  Uni- 
versity at  Columbus;  Ohio  State  University  and  University  of 
Illinois  at  Urbana.  In  the  year  1906-1907  Ohio  State  University 
and  Indiana  University  at  Bloomington;  University  of  Illinois  and 

352 


APPENDIX  F  353 

Ohio  State  University  at  Columbus;  Indiana  University  and  Uni- 
versity of  Illinois  at  Urbana;  and  thereafter  in  the  same  biennial 
rotation. 

Article  4. — (a)  A  question  shall  be  proposed  by  each  institu- 
tion not  later  than  the  5th  of  October  preceding  the  debates. 

(b)  The  Secretary  shall  at  once  send  the  three  questions  to  the 
three  institutions,  and  they  shall  reply  not  later  than  the  25th  of 
October,  each  institution  indicating  its  ranking  of  the  three  ques- 
tions as  first  choice,  second  choice,  third  choice. 

(c)  The  Secretary  shall  report  the  result  of  this  vote  not  later 
than  the  30th  of  October,  and  the  question  ranked  highest  in  the 
vote  shall  be  debated  by  aU  teams.  In  case  of  a  tie  in  the  rank- 
ing the  selection  from  the  three  questions  shall  be  made  by  the 
President  of  the  University  of  Minnesota. 

(d)  After  the  question  has  been  chosen  no  modification  shall 
be  made  in  its  wording  and  no  definition  permitted. 

Article  5. — The  home  team  shall  support  the  afl&rmative  of 
the  question  and  the  visiting  team  the  negative. 

Article  6. — Each  speaker  shall  be  allowed  twelve  minutes 
for  a  principal  speech  and  five  minutes  for  a  rebuttal  speech.  No 
time  may  be  transferred  from  one  speaker  to  another,  but  the 
order  of  rebuttal  speeches  on  either  side  may  be  changed  at  the 
wish  of  the  speakers  on  that  side.  "The  negative  shall  lead  in 
rebuttal." 

Article  7. — (a)  The  visiting  institution  shall  not  later  than 
the  15th  of  January  nominate  a  list  of  twenty  names  of  persons 
living  within  two  hundred  and  fifty  miles  of  the  place  of  the  de- 
bate, no  one  of  whom  shall  be  or  shall  have  been  connected  with 
any  of  the  three  institutions  concerned  either  as  ofiicer,  teacher  or 
student.  The  home  institution  shall  have  the  right  of  veto  for 
cause  to  be  explicitly  stated  to  the  other  institution  within  two 
weeks  thereafter,  and  the  visiting  institution  shall  submit  other 
names  equal  in  number  to  those  vetoed.  The  home  institution 
shall  choose  three  persons  from  this  list  to  act  as  judges. 

(b)  Each  judge  shall  be  provided  with  written  instructions  in 
the  following  form: 

Date 

In  rendering  your  decision,  you  are  asked  to  consider  the  merits 
of  the  debate  and  not  the  merits  of  the  question.  You  are  the  sole 
judges  of  what  constitutes  effective  debating,  remembering  that 
both  thought  and  delivery  are  to  be  considered. 


354  APPENDIX  P 

In  my  opinion  the team  has  done  the  most 

effective  debating. 

Judge 

(c)  At  the  close  of  the  debate  each  judge  shall  be  permitted  to 
withdraw,  and  within  15  minutes  shall  present  to  the  chairman 
in  a  sealed  envelope  his  individual  decision,  reached  without  con- 
ference with  his  colleagues. 

Article  8. — Each  institution  shall  pay  the  expenses  of  its  de- 
baters. All  other  expenses  of  each  debate  shall  be  paid  by  the 
entertaining  institution. 


APPENDIX  G 

Propositions 

Political 

Legislative. 

1.  Any  further  centralization  of  power  in  the  Federal  Govern- 

ment of  the  United  States  should  be  condemned. 

2.  United  States  senators  should  be  elected  by  popular  vote. 

3.  The  House  of  Representatives  should  elect  its  standing 

committees. 

4.  The  state  of  should  adopt  the  legislative 

referendum, 

5.  An  amendment  of  the  Federal  Constitution  should  be 

adopted  convening  the  first  session  of  Congress  within 
a  few  months  after  the  election  and  compelling  the 
second  session  to  adjourn  several  days  before  the  follow- 
ing election. 

6.  The  number  of  representatives  to  Congress  should  be 

reduced. 

7.  All  members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 

should  be  required  to  be  present  during  the  discussion 
of  all  proposed  legislation,  unless  prevented  by  ill- 
ness. 

8.  The  United  States  should  adopt  the  Swiss  referendum. 

9.  The  Constitution  should  be  so  amended  as  to  make  the 

passing  of  amendments  easier. 

10.  The  United  States  Senate  should  adopt  a  closure  rule. 

11.  Lobbying  in  Congress  and  in  the  state  legislatures  should 

be  prohibited  by  law. 

12.  Direct  legislation  by  means  of  the  initiative  and  referendum 

is  desirable  for  our  states  and  their  subdivisions. 

13.  The  initiative  and  referendum  offer  a  desirable  relief  from 

the  evils  arising  from  the  dominance  of  special  interests 
in  our  states  and  their  municipalities. 
355 


356  APPENDIX  G 

B.  Executive. 

14.  The  President  of  the  United  States  should  be  elected  for 

one  term  of  seven  years,  and  be  ineligible  for  reelec- 
tion. 

15.  The  President  of  the  United  States  should  be  elected  by 

direct  vote  of  the  people. 

16.  The  President  should  be  allowed  to  veto  items  in  appro- 

priation bills. 

17.  The  President  of  the  United  States  is  justified  in  calling 

out  the  militia  to  subdue  local  disturbances,  without 
consent  or  request  of  state  authorities. 

18.  Counties  in  which  a  lynching  occurs  should  be  placed 

under  martial  law  until  they  give  evidence  of  capacity 
to  exercise  effective  local  government,  not  exceeding 
a  term  of  one  year. 

19.  For  the  better  protection  of  life,  liberty,  and  property  in 

rural  districts  a  state  constabulary  is  necessary. 

C.  Judicial. 

20.  The  recall  of  state  and  local  judges  by  popular  vote  is  de- 

sirable. 

21.  A  two-thirds  vote  of  the  jury  should  constitute  a  verdict 

in  criminal  cases. 

22.  A  two-thirds  vote  of  the  jury  should  constitute  a  verdict 

in  civil  cases. 

23.  Federal  judges  should  be  elected  by  popular  vote. 

24.  The  jury  system  should  be  abolished. 

25.  The  courts  should  be  forbidden  by  law  to  issue  "blanket" 

injunctions  in  labor  disputes. 

26.  The  detention  of  innocent  witnesses,  pending  the  trial  of 

cases  in  court,  without  adequate  compensation  and 
without  proof  of  its  necessity  should  be  prohibited  by 
law. 

27.  State  judges  should  be  appointed  by  the  governor  to  hold 

office  during  life  or  good  behavior. 

28.  The  law  governing  judicial  process  should  be  so  amended 

as  to  provide  for  the  more  speedy  conduct  of  criminal 
cases,  and  fewer  opportunities  for  delay  in  the  execution 
of  the  sentences  imposed. 

29.  It  would  be  desirable  to  elect  justices  of  the  United  States 

Supreme  Court  by  popular  vote. 


APPENDIX  G  357 

D.  Franchise. 

30.  The  right  of  suffrage  should  be  limited  to  persons  who  can 

read  and  write. 

31.  There  should  be  an  educational  test  as  a  qualification  for 

voting. 
2,2.  The  white  citizens  of  the  South  are  justified  in  using  all 
peaceable  means  to  secure  political  supremacy. 

33.  Men  and  women  should  have  equal  suffrage. 

34.  The  admission  to  citizenship  into  the  United  States  should 

be  granted  under  stricter  requirements  as  to  a  working 
knowledge  of  rights  and  duties  of  the  privileges  con- 
ferred. 

35.  Admission  of  aliens  to  the  privileges  of  citizenship  should 

be  granted  on  more  restrictive  conditions. 
^6.  The  admission  of  native-born  and  foreign-bom  citizens  to 
the  privilege  of  voting  should  be  granted  only  upon  evi- 
dence of  due  qualifications  both  as  to  knowledge  of  the 
rights  and  obligations  and  also  of  respect  for  the  insti- 
tutions and  ideals  of  our  national  life. 

E.  Immigration. 

37.  The  immigration  restrictions  which  now  apply  to  the 

Chinese  should  be  extended  so  as  to  apply  to  the  Japa- 
nese. 

38.  The  United  States  should  make  no  discrimination  between 

the  immigrants  from  China  and  those  from  other 
countries. 

39.  Admission  of  further  immigration  to  the  United  States, 

so  long  as  the  congestion  of  alien  groups  persist  in  our 
large  cities,  should  be  subject  to  Federal  control  of  such 
arrivals  for  a  definite  period  of  years  for  purposes  of 
better  distribution  with  regard  to  the  requirements  of 
the  different  sections  of  the  country. 

40.  The  immigration  of  all  Japanese  and  Chinese  laborers  to 

the  United  States  should  be  prohibited  by  law. 

F.  Miscellaneotis. 

41.  Party  lines  should  be  disregarded  in  all  elections. 

42.  Public  advocacy  of  violent  means  for  the  subversion  of 

government  should  be  suppressed  by  law  in  the  United 
States. 


3S8  APPENDIX  G 

43.  The  United  States  should  have  exclusive  jurisdiction  over 

Behring  Sea. 

44.  The  sharing  of  public  funds  for  purposes  which  ignore  the 

constitutional  separation  of  church  and  state  is  a  menace 
to  our  Federal,  State,  and  Municipal  institutions  and 
should  be  abandoned  wherever  inaugurated  and  pre- 
vented wherever  existing  or  proposed. 

45.  The  short  ballot  should  be  adopted  in  State  and  Municipal 

governments. 

46.  The  tendency  of  political  platform  making  is  to  over- 

burden the  Federal  government  with  proposals  whose 
nature  and  accomplishment  are  better  adapted  to  State, 
Municipal,  and  other  local  governmental  agencies. 

47.  Congress  should  provide  for  uniform  Federal  marriage 

and  divorce  laws.    Constitutionality  conceded. 

48.  All  cities  in  the  United  States  of  over  5,000  inhabitants 

should  adopt  the  commission  form  of  government. 

49.  The  "Galveston  Plan"  of  city  government  by  a  board  of 

directors  insures  increase  of  efficiency  combined  with  a 
decrease  of  corruption  in  city  affairs. 

50.  There  should  be  a  large  and  immediate  increase  in  the 

United  States  Navy. 

51.  A  political  reformation  in  the  United  States  looking  to  the 

formation  of  two  new  poUtical  parties  is  desirable. 

52.  The  states  should  adopt  the  recall  for  all  state  and  local 

officers  except  members  of  the  judiciary. 

53.  A  commission  form  of  government  is  preferable  to  a  mayor 

and  council  plan. 

Economic 
A.  Tariff. 

54.  Commercial  reciprocity  with  Canada  would  be  for  the  best 

interest  of  the  United  States. 

55.  The  tariff  on  goods  imported  into  the  United  States  should 

be  fixed  by  a  bi-partisan  commission. 

56.  The  United  States  should  impose  a  tariff  on  imports  from 

the  Philippines.    Constitutionality  conceded. 

57.  The  protective  tariff  should  be  removed  from  trust-made 

products. 

58.  Raw  materials  shovild  be  admitted  to  the  United  States 

free  of  duty. 


APPENDIX  G  359 

59.  The  tariff  on  raw  materials  is  justified  on  the  ground  of 

the  protection  of  American  industry  against  foreign 
competition. 

60.  Sugar  should  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  free  of  duty. 

61.  Commercial  reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and 

South  America  would  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
United  States. 

62.  The  United  States  should  adopt  the  policy  of  tariff  for 

revenue  only. 
6^.  Steel  should  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  free  of  duty. 

64.  AU  goods,  the  price  of  which  is  controlled  by  a  single  capi- 

tahst  or  combination  of  capitaUsts,  should  be  admitted 
to  the  United  States  free  of  duty. 

B.  Taxation. 

65.  The  growth  of  large  fortunes  should  be  checked  by  means 

of  national  progressive  income  and  inheritance  taxes. 

66.  The  Federal  government  should  levy  a  progressive  in- 

heritance tax.    Granted,  that  such  tax  would  be  held 
constitutional. 

67.  The  Federal  government  should  levy  a  progressive  income 

tax.    Constitutionality  conceded. 

68.  The  single  tax  as  advocated  by  Henry  George,  would  be 

an  improvement  over  our  present  system  of  taxation. 

69.  The  tax  on  the  issue  of  state  banks  should  be  repealed. 

70.  That  a  graduated  income  tax  would  be  a  desirable  addition 

to  the  Federal  system  of  taxation. 

71.  A  Federal  graduated  income  tax  with  an  exemption  of  all 

incomes  below  $5000  per  annum  would  be  a  desirable 
modification  of  the  system  of  Federal  taxation. 

C.  Corporations. 

72.  Congress  should  pass  laws  prohibiting  corporate  contribu- 

tions to  political  campaign  funds. 

73.  The  regulating  power  of  Congress  should  be  extended  over 

all  corporations  doing  an  interstate  business.     Con- 
stitutionality conceded. 

74.  All  corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  should 

be  required  to  take  out  a  Federal  license. 

75.  Physical  valuation  of  the  property  of  a  corporation  is  the 

best  basis  for  fixing  the  rate  of  taxation. 


360  APPENDIX  G 

76.  Railroad  pooling   is   economically  advantageous  to  the 

public. 

77.  The  price  of  "trust-made"  products  should  be  regulated 

by  law. 

78.  The  National  Bureau  of  Corporations  should  have  con- 

trol of  industrial  and  commercial  corporations  doing 
interstate  business,  similar  to  the  control  which  the 
Interstate  Commerce  Commission  has  over  railroads. 

79.  All  corporations  engaged  in  interstate  commerce  should 

be  required  to  take  out  Federal  charters;  it  being  con- 
ceded that  such  a  requirement  would  be  constitutional 
and  that  Federal  license  shall  not  be  available  as  an 
alternative  plan. 

80.  The  policy  of  regulating  industrial  corporations  is  prefer- 

able to  the  policy  of  dissolving  them. 

D.  Labor. 

81.  The  New  Zealand  system  of  compulsory  arbitration  should 

be  adopted  in  the  United  States. 

82.  A  system  of  compulsory  arbitration  should  be  adopted 

in  the  United  States. 

83.  Employers  and  employees  of  all  public  service  corporations 

such  as  railroads,  street  railways,  etc.,  should  be  com- 
pelled to  arbitrate  labor  disputes. 

84.  Members  of  trades-unions  are  justified  in  refusing  to  work 

with  non-union  men. 

85.  State   boards   of   arbitration,   with   compulsory   powers, 

should  be  established  to  settle  all  disputes  between  em- 
ployers and  employees. 

86.  Employers  are  justified  in  refusing  recognition  to  labor 

unions. 

87.  The  history  of  trades-unions  for  the  past  ten  years  shows  a 

tendency  detrimental  to  the  industrial  development  of 
the  United  States. 

88.  The  boycott  is  a  legitimate  means  of  enforcing  the  de- 

mands of  organized  labor. 

89.  The  growth  of  labor  unions  is  a  menace  to  liberties  of  the 

working  man. 

90.  The  closed  "shop"  is  justifiable. 

91.  Employers  should  be  prohibited  from  setting  up  contribu- 

tory negligence  or  negligence  of  a  feUow  servant  as  a  bar 


APPENDIX  G  361 

to  recovery  of  adequate  compensation  by  an  injured 
employee. 

92.  The  right  to  strike  on  the  part  of  public  employees  should 

always  be  subject  to  referendum  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
munity immediately  concerned. 

93.  It  would  be  advisable  to  legalize  the  strike  and  the  boycott. 

94.  The  movement  of  organized  labor  for  the  closed  shop 

should  receive  the  support  of  pubUc  opinion. 

95.  The  best  interests  of  the  laboring  classes  would  be  ad- 

vanced by  the  development  of  a  separate  labor  party. 

E.  Public  Ownership. 

96.  The  Federal  government  should  buy  and  operate  the  tele- 

graph systems. 

97.  Mimicipahties  in  the  United  States  of  over  10,000  inhabit- 

ants should  own  and  operate  their  systems  for  Ughting 
and  local  transportation. 

98.  The  United  States  should  own  and  operate  the  coal  mines 

within  its  borders. 

99.  The  forests  of  the  United  States  should  be  owned  and 

operated  by  the  Federal  government. 

F.  Miscellaneous. 

100.  The   powers  of  the  Interstate   Commerce   Commission 

should  be  enlarged, 
loi.  The  United  States  should  subsidize  our  merchant  marine. 

102.  It  is  economically  advantageous  to  the  United  States  to 

own  territory  in  the  tropics. 

103.  The  amount  of  property  transferable  by  inheritance  should 

be  limited  by  statute. 

104.  The  existing  systems  of  commercial  distribution  between 

producers  and  consumers  is  chiefly  responsible  for  the 
high  cost  of  living. 

105.  The  national  debt  should  be  paid  as  rapidly  as  possible. 

106.  Mail  order  stores  are  a  benefit  to  the  public. 

107.  Prison-made  products  should  be  excluded  from  the  open 

market. 

108.  The  labor  of  prisoners  in  the  state  penitentiary  should  be 

utilized  in  improving  the  highways  of  the  state. 

109.  The  American  coastwise  trafi&c  should  pass  through  the 

Panama  Canal  toll  free. 


362  APPENDIX  G 

no.  Congress  should  be  given  the  power  by  constitutional 
amendment  to  regulate  manufactures  and  industry. 

111.  The  Federal  government  should  establish  a  bank  of  the 

United  States, 

112.  The  Aldrich  plan  of  a  National  Reserve  Association  should 

be  adopted  by  the  Federal  government. 

113.  The  Federal  government  should  regulate  and  supervise  all 

fire  and  hfe  insurance  companies  doing  an  interstate 
business. 

114.  The  Federal  government  should  grant  financial  aid  to  ships 

engaged  in  our  foreign  trade  and  owned  by  citizens  of 
the  United  States. 

115.  There  should  be  some  legislation  providing  for  the  guaran- 

tee of  bank  deposits. 

116.  The  Federal  government  should  develop  the  waterway 

from  the  Great  Lakes  to  the  Gulf. 

117.  A   system   of   compulsory   industrial   insurance   covering 

accident,  sickness,  and  old  age  should  be  adopted  in  the 
United  States.    Constitutionality  conceded. 

118.  The  inland  waterways  of  the  United  States  should  be 

extensively  improved  by  the  Federal  government. 

119.  The  United  States  should  adopt  a  double  monetary  stand- 

ard. 


Social 

A .  The  Liquor  Problem. 

120.  The  elimination  of  private  profits  ofifers  the  best  solution 

of  the  liquor  problem. 

121.  Prohibition  of  the  liquor  traffic  is  preferable  to  any  system 

of  license,  wherever  public  opinion  will  sanction  the 
passage  and  enforcement  of  such  a  law. 

122.  The  United  States  army  should  reestablish  the  use  of  the 

canteen. 

123.  The  Carolina  Dispensary  System  for  controlling  the  use 

and  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  should  be  adopted  in 
the  state  of 

124.  State    prohibition    has     failed    wherever   it    has    been 

adopted. 

125.  Prohibition  is  more  conducive  to  temperance  than  high 

license. 


APPENDIX  G  363 

B.  International  Peace. 

126.  The  United  States  should  at  once  announce  and  carry 

out  a  policy  of  total  disarmament. 

127.  The  present  growth  of  armaments  should  be  checked  by 

mutual  agreement  between  the  nations. 

128.  The  United  States  should  immediately  provide  for  an 

increase  in  its  navy. 

129.  International  peace  is  best  promoted  by  extensive  warlike 

preparations. 

C.  Insurance  and  Pensions. 

130.  The  German  system  of  compulsory  insurance  should  be 

adopted  in  the  United  States. 

131.  The  Federal  government  should  control  all  life  insurance 

companies. 

132.  A  system  of  compulsory  industrial  insurance  should  be 

adopted  in  the  United  States. 

133.  The  United  States  government  should  grant  uniform  pen- 

sions to  all  citizens  over  sixty  years  of  age. 

134.  The    Federal    government    should    grant    old-age    pen- 

sions. 

D.  The  Church. 

135.  All  church  property  should  be  taxed. 

136.  The  modern  church  should  maintain  more  rigid  rules  re- 

garding the  personal  conduct  of  its  members. 

137.  A  union  of  all  Christian  churches  in  the  United  States 

would  further  the  cause  of  Christianity. 

E.  Miscellaneous. 

138.  Sunday  baseball  should  be  prohibited. 

139.  Public  libraries,  museums,  and  art  galleries  should  be  open 

on  Sunday. 

140.  Lavish  social  entertainments  should  be  condemned. 

141.  In  times  of  business  depression  the  states  and  municipali- 

ties should  furnish  employment  to  the  unemployed. 

142.  Capital  punishment  should  be  abolished. 

143.  All  cities  of  over  25,000  population  should  establish  free 

public  employment  bureaus. 

144.  State  institutions  should  be  established  providing  for  the 

care  and  training  of  homeless  children. 


364  APPENDIX  G 

145.  The  growth  of  monopolies  shows  a  tendency  toward  So- 

ciahsm. 

146.  Congress  should  enact  laws  providing  for  the  censorship  of 

the  stage. 

147.  Moving  picture  shows  should  be  compelled  to  exhibit  only 

such  pictures  as  can  be  shown  to  have  an  educational  or 
cultural  value. 

148.  The  United  States  is  moving  toward  SociaUsm. 

149.  The  tendency  of  the  population  of  the  United  States  to 

concentrate  in  the  cities  is  detrimental  to  the  best  in- 
terest of  the  people. 

150.  Children  under  sixteen  years  of  age  should  be  prohibited 

by  Federal  law  from  working  in  factories. 

151.  A  maximum  eight  hour  working  day  for  all  occupations 

should  be  established  by  state  law. 

152.  Vivisection  should  be  prohibited  by  law. 

153.  Arctic  and  Antarctic  expeditions  should  be  looked  upon 

with  disfavor  by  the  public. 

154.  The  United  States  government  should  grant  permanent 

copyright. 

155.  Automobiles  should  be  prohibited  from  running  more  than 

fifteen  miles  an  hour. 

156.  Railroads  should  be  required  by  Federal  and  state  law 

to  adopt  all  devices  such  as  block  signals,  steel  pas- 
senger coaches,  etc.,  which  minimize  the  danger  from 
wreck. 

157.  Greater  security  should  be  given  by  law  to  wills  and  be- 

quests. 

158.  The  negro  is  not  fitted  to  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage. 

159.  There  should  be  a  state  censorship  of  the  stage. 

160.  Letter  postage  should  be  reduced  to  one  cent. 

161.  Male  citizens  should  be  compelled  to  serve  two  years  in 

the  United  States  army. 

162.  Popular  literature  shows  a  decline  in  public  morals. 

163.  Social  settlement  organizations  offer  the  best  means  of 

conducting  charitable  work. 

164.  The  plea  of  insanity  shall  not  be  available  as  a  bar  to 

punishment  for  crime. 

165.  Newspapers  should  be  prohibited  from  publishing  matter 

which  has  a  tendency  to  corrupt  the  pubUc  morals. 


APPENDIX  G  365 

Educational 

A .  Common  School. 

166.  The  Bible  should  be  taught  in  the  public  schools. 

167.  Free  text-books  should  be  furnished  to  all  pupils  below  the 

high  school  grade. 

168.  The  state  should  prescribe  uniform  text-books  for  the 

pubhc  schools. 

169.  Public  funds  should  not  be  appropriated  to  aid  private  or 

sectarian  schools. 

1 70.  No  prizes  should  be  offered  in  public  schools. 

B.  High  School. 

171.  Every  high  school  should  be  compelled  to  maintain  courses 

in  manual  training  and  domestic  science. 

172.  Secret  societies  should  be  prohibited  in  public  high  schools. 

173.  High  school  courses  should  be  revised  so  as  to  furnish  more 

practical  educational  training. 

174.  The  high  school  course  as  at  present  given  by  almost  all 

high  schools  is  of  no  practical  value  to  the  pupil  who 
does  not  go  to  college. 

175.  Military  drill  should  be  compulsory  in  all  public  high 

schools  of  the  United  States. 

C.  College. 

176.  The  honor  system  of  examinations  should  be  adopted  by 

all  American  colleges. 

177.  Freshmen  at  should  not  be  permitted  to  engage 

in  inter-collegiate  athletics. 

178.  All  college  courses  should  be  completely  elective. 

179.  Athletics,  as  now  conducted,  are  a  detriment  to  American 

colleges. 

180.  No  college  should  be  located  near  a  large  city. 

181.  Denominational  colleges  should  not  receive  financial  aid 

from  the  state. 

182.  For  the  average  student  the  small  college  is  preferable  to 

the  large  college. 

183.  Admission  to  American  colleges  should  be  by  examination 

only. 

184.  Inter-collegiate  football  should  be  abolished. 

185.  Segregation  of  sexes  in  American  colleges  and  universities 

is  preferable  to  coeducation. 


366  APPENDIX  G 

1 86.  Students  in  college  courses  who  attain  the  rank  of  ninety 

per  cent  or  higher  in  daUy  work  should  be  excused  from 
examinations. 

187.  Two  years  of  college  work  should  be  required  for  admission 

to  any  course  in  law  or  medicine. 

188.  Written  term  examinations  should  be  abolished. 

189.  The  class  rushes  at  the  beginning  of  the  college  year  should 

be  prohibited. 

190.  Chapel  attendance  at  the  University  of  should 

be  compulsory. 

191.  Student  government  should  be  established  at  the  Uni- 

versity of 

192.  The  Oxford  type  of  university  should  be  adopted  in  the 

United  States. 

193.  For  the  average  man  a  college  education  is  an  aid  to  busi- 

ness success. 

194.  The  colleges  of  the  state  of  should  be  combined 

into  one  centrally  located  university. 

D.  Miscellaneous. 

195.  A  National  University  should  be  established  at  Washing- 

ton. 

196.  Novels  should  not  be  placed  in  circulation  by  public  li- 

braries until  two  years  after  publication. 

197.  The  number  of  subjects  taught  in  high  schools  and  colleges 

should  be  greatly  reduced. 

198.  The  recommendations  of  the  simplified  spelling  board 

should  be  adopted  throughout  the  United  States. 

199.  Night  trade  schools  should  be  established  as  a  part  of  our 

system  of  public  instruction. 

200.  Industrial  education  will  solve  the  negro  race  problem  in 

the  United  States. 


Printed  in  the  UiiiteJ  States  of  America. 


PE 

K4 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


50»n-l,'63(D4743s8)4V6 


3  1205  02666  6071 


